Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study intends to test the Graded Salience Hypothesis, in order to investigate the factors involved in comprehension. This research considered predictions derived from this hypothesis by evaluating the salience of idioms in the Persian language. We intended to measure Reading Time (RTs), and the design comprised 2 Contexts (figurative, literal), 3 Types of Statements (familiar vs. unfamiliar vs. less familiar) and RTs (long, short, equal). Two types of contexts (figuratively inviting and literally inviting contexts) were prepared. The software for this experiment was prepared for the purpose of self-paced reading experiments. Two pretests were performed. In the first pretest, participants rated the expressions on a 1–7 familiarity scale. The second pretest was designed to confirm that contexts are equally supportive. Then, expressions were divided according to their familiarity (familiar, less-familiar, unfamiliar). Sentences were used so that, according to the second pretest, their contexts would be equally supportive. Sentences were displayed on a PC, controlled by Windows 7. The self-paced reading task was applied using the Moving Windows software. In the first part of the experiment, participants read each idiom in figuratively inviting contexts and their RTs were recorded. In the second part of the experiment, participants read each idiom in literally inviting contexts and their RTs were recorded. Results of testing these idioms support the Graded Salience Hypothesis, but not entirely. Such findings suggested that sometimes context affects the access of salient information and a semi serial process is witnessed. Results indicate that the salient meaning of both familiar and less familiar idioms is figurative. In addition, salient meanings in the space following the unfamiliar idiom and the first word of the next (spillover) sentence, were both, figurative and literal.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ariel, M.
    (2002) The demise of a unique literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00043‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00043-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of language processing, (pp.3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, E.
    (1999) On the nature and nurture of language. InE. Bizzi, P. Calissano & V. Volterra (Eds.), Frontiers of biology: The brain of Homo sapiens, (pp.241–265). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blasko, G. D., & Connine, C.
    (1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coulson, S., & Kutas, M.
    (1998) Frame-shifting and sentential integration, technical report. CogSci, 98(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, S., & Meshkatod Dini, M.
    (2013) A survey on optimal innovation and Salience Hypothesis in the Persian advertisement. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(12), 342–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, Sh., & Meshkatod Dini, M.
    (2014) Understanding irony in Graded Salience Hypothesis. The first conference on neuro-psychology (107–125). Linguistic Society of Iran.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Figurative language; A survey on the factors related to the semantic comprehension; Their effectiveness and psychological reliability, Ph.D. dissertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fodor, J.
    (1983) The modularity of mind, Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Forster, K. I.
    (1976) Accessing the mental lexicon. InR. J. Wales & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp.257–287). Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1979) Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. InW. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.27–85). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc: Hillsdale, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A.
    (1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2512 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gernsbacher, M. A.
    (1984) Resolving twenty years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.2.256
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256 [Google Scholar]
  14. Giora, R.
    (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Giora, R., & Fein, O.
    (1999) On understanding familiar and less familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00006‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00006-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R., Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R.
    (2007a) Expecting irony: Context versus salience-sased effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–146. 10.1080/10926480701235346
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701235346 [Google Scholar]
  18. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
    (2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141. 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I.
    (2013) Negation generates non-literal interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115. 10.1080/10926488.2013.768510
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768510 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T.
    (1994) Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgements: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1–18. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1001
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ivanko, S., & Pexman, P. M.
    (2001) Understanding irony: On-line processing of figurative and literal meaning. Poster presented at theEleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. University of California: Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D.
    (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. 10.1037/0096‑3445.111.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228 [Google Scholar]
  23. Katz, A. N.
    (1977) Propositional structure and illocutionary force. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kazemi, S. A., Araghi, S. M., & Bahramy, M.
    (2013) The role of conceptual metaphor in idioms and mental imagery in Persian speakers. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 38–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kecskés, I., & Papp, T.
    (2000) Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410606464
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606464 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kecskés, I.
    (2000a) Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2. Links & Letters, 7, 143–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2000b) A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 605–625. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00063‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M.
    (1993) The empirical study of figurative language in literature. Poetics, 22, 151–169. 10.1016/0304‑422X(93)90026‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(93)90026-D [Google Scholar]
  29. Laurent, J., Denhières, G., Passerieux, C., Iakimova, G., & Hardy-Baylé, M.
    (2006) On understanding idiomatic language: The Salience Hypothesis assessed by ERPs. Brain Research, 1068, 151–160. 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.076
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.076 [Google Scholar]
  30. MacWhinney, B.
    (1987) The Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp.249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mirdehghan, M., Nejati, V., & Davoodi, E.
    (2012) A comprehensive study of Persian proverbs among monolingual and bilingual adolescents comparatively on the basis of the constraint satisfaction. Language Related Research, 12, 3(3), 193–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Morris, R. K., & Binder, K. S.
    (2002) What do skilled readers do with the unselected meaning of an ambiguous word?InD. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on ambiguity resolution (pp.139–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Parvaresh, V., & Ghafel, B.
    (2012) Idiomatic expressions of number in Persian and English. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A.
    (2000) Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222. 10.1207/S15326950dp2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rasex Mahand, M., & Shamsod Dini, M.
    (2012) Semantic classification of Persian idioms: A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Adab Pajuhi, 20, 11–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K.
    (2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 47–61. 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864 [Google Scholar]
  37. Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Arnold, J. E.
    (2000) The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 195–203. 10.1023/A:1005197012421
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005197012421 [Google Scholar]
  38. Zajonc, R. B.
    (2000) Closing the debate over the independence of affect. InJ. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp.31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zolfaqari, H.
    (2008) The difference between irony and proverb. Research on Persian Language and Literature Journal, 10, 109–133.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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