1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Idiom studies typically consider variables such as familiarity, decomposability and literal plausibility, and the contributions of these to how figurative phrases are processed are well established. In this study we consider the effect of a previously untested variable: semantic richness. Semantic richness refers broadly to the range of semantic information denoted by a lexical item, and reflects features such as imageability, number of senses, semantic neighbourhood, etc. This has generally been restricted to single words and sometimes to metaphors, so here we investigate how some aspects of this measure – specifically those reflecting perceptual characteristics – contribute to the processing of idiomatic expressions. Results show that aspects of semantic richness affect idiom processing in different ways, with some (emotional valence) contributing to faster processing of figuratively related words, and others (those that highlight physical and literal aspects of the idiom) showing an inhibitory effect. We also show that for some of the dimensions of semantic richness considered here, there is a significant correlation between a measure constructed from the ratings of component words, and one gathered from ratings for the phrase as a whole, suggesting a straightforward way to operationalise semantic richness at a multiword level.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18014.fin
2019-05-14
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abel, B.
    (2003) English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: a dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329–358. 10.1191/0267658303sr226oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658303sr226oa [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Azary, H. & Buchanan, L.
    (2017) Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45, 296–307. 10.3758/s13421‑016‑0650‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0650-7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C.
    (2001) Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 531–544. 10.3758/BF03196189
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196189 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P.
    (1988) The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668–683. 10.1016/0749‑596X(88)90014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caillies, S., & Butcher, K.
    (2007) Processing of Idiomatic Expressions: Evidence for a New Hybrid View. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108. 10.1080/10926480709336754
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336754 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caillies, S. & Declerq, C.
    (2011) Kill the Song – Steal the Show: What Does Distinguish Predicative Metaphors From Decomposable Idioms?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(3), 205–223. 10.1007/s10936‑010‑9165‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9165-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carrol, G., Littlemore, J. & Dowens, M. G.
    (2018) Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Citron, F. & Goldberg, A.
    (2014) Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(1), 2585–2595. 10.1162/jocn_a_00654
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654 [Google Scholar]
  10. Citron, F., Cacciari, C., Kucharski, M., Beck, L., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A.
    (2016) When emotions are expressed figuratively: Psycholinguistic and affective norms of 619 idioms for German (PANIG). Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 91–111. 10.3758/s13428‑015‑0581‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0581-4 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coltheart, M.
    (1981) The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505. 10.1080/14640748108400805
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cortese, M. J. & Fugett, A.
    (2004) Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 384–387. 10.3758/BF03195585
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cronk, B. & Schweigert, W.
    (1992) The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(2), 131–146. 10.1017/S0142716400005531
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005531 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A. & Carreiras, M.
    (2008) NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), pp.1072–1077. 10.3758/PBR.15.6.1072
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1072 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S.
    (2018) Visualizing Fit and Lack of Fit in Complex Regression Models with Predictor Effect Plots and Partial Residuals. Journal of Statistical Software, 87(9), 1–27. 10.18637/jss.v087.i09
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v087.i09 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H.
    (1980) Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior research methods & instrumentation, 12(4), 395–427. 10.3758/BF03201693
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201693 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamblin, J., & Gibbs, J. R. W.
    (1999) Why You Can’t Kick the Bucket as You Slowly Die: Verbs in Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 25–39. 10.1023/A:1023235403250
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023235403250 [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, R. J., Friel, B. M. & Mickelson, N. R.
    (2006) Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete- and abstract-tenor metaphors with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(6), 863–879. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Juhasz, B. J. & Yap, M. J.
    (2013) Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono-and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 160–168. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0242‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0242-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Katz, A. N.
    (1992) Psychological studies in metaphor processing: Extensions to the placement of terms in semantic space. Poetics Today, 13(4), 607–632. 10.2307/1773291
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1773291 [Google Scholar]
  21. Keysar, B. & Bly, B.
    (1995) Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: can one keep a secret by spilling the beans?Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89–109. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1005
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1005 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1999) Swimming against the current: do idioms reflect conceptual structure?J. Pragmat. 31, 1559–1578. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00004‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00004-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
  24. (2000) Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. 10.3758/BF03212981
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212981 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kounios, A., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Fleck, J. I., Grondin, R. & McRae, K.
    (2009) Semantic richness and the activation of concepts in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1282, 95–102. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.092
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.092 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G.
    (2009) Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), pp.473–481. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  28. Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A.
    (2008) The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103–1121. 10.3758/MC.36.6.1103
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1103 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mueller, R. A. G., & Gibbs, R. W.
    (1987) Processing idioms with multiple meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16(1), 63–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ojha, A. & Indurkhya, B.
    (2016) On the role of perceptual features in metaphor comprehension. InE. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and Communication (pp.147–170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.5.08ojh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.08ojh [Google Scholar]
  31. Paivio, A. & Clark, A. J.
    (1986) The role of topic and vehicle imagery in metaphor comprehension. Communication and Cognition19(3–4), 367–387.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C. & Madigan, S. A.
    (1968) Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of experimental psychology, 76(1p2), 1–25. 10.1037/h0025327
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327 [Google Scholar]
  33. Papagno, C., & Caporali, A.
    (2007) Testing idiom comprehension in aphasic patients: the effects of task and idiom type. Brain and Language, 100(2), 208–220. 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Papagno, C., & Genoni, A.
    (2004) The role of syntactic competence in idiom comprehension: a study on aphasic patients. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(5), 371–382. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2003.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2003.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Papagno, C., Lucchelli, F., Muggia, S., & Rizzo, S.
    (2003) Idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: the role of the central executive. Brain, 126, 2419–2430. 10.1093/brain/awg243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg243 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pexman, P., Hargreaves, I., Siakaluk, P., Bodner, G. & Pope, J.
    (2008) There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,(1), 161–167. 10.3758/PBR.15.1.161
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.161 [Google Scholar]
  37. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rassiga, C., Lucchelli, F., Crippa, F., & Papagno, C.
    (2009) Ambiguous idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(4), 402–411. 10.1080/13803390802220019
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390802220019 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M.
    (2002) 358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339–1362. 10.1080/02724980244000099
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000099 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodd, J. M.
    (2004) The effect of semantic ambiguity on reading aloud: A twist in the tale. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 440–445. 10.3758/BF03196592
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196592 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schweigert, W.
    (1986) The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33–45. 10.1007/BF01067390
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067390 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1991) The Muddy Waters of Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314. 10.1007/BF01074283
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074283 [Google Scholar]
  43. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J. & Sears, C. R.
    (2008) Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106(1), 433–443. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.011 [Google Scholar]
  44. Smolka, E., Rabanus, S., & Rösler, F.
    (2007) Processing Verbs in German Idioms: Evidence Against the Configuration Hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(3), 213–231. 10.1080/10926480701357638
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701357638 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sprenger, S., Levelt, W., & Kempen, G.
    (2006) Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 161–184. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Titone, D., & Connine, C.
    (1994) Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions: Effects of Predictability and Literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1126–1138.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1999) On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00008‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00008-9 [Google Scholar]
  48. Titone, D., & Libben, M.
    (2014) Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 473–496.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Toglia, M. P. & Battig, W. F.
    (1978) Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2014) Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190. 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J. and Terbeek, D.
    (1981) Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 24(3), 322–329. 10.1044/jshr.2403.330
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2403.330 [Google Scholar]
  52. Woollams, A. M.
    (2005) Imageability and ambiguity effects in speeded naming: Convergence and divergence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 878–890.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Xu, X.
    (2010) Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1622–1636. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M., & Hargreaves, I. S.
    (2011) Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 742–750. 10.3758/s13423‑011‑0092‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0092-y [Google Scholar]
  55. Yap, M. J., Pexman, P., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J.
    (2012) An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(72), 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Yap, M. J. and Seow, C. S.
    (2014) The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), pp.526–533. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0525‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0525-x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18014.fin
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18014.fin
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cross-modal priming , idioms and semantic richness
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error