Critical Analysis of Idiom
Processing Models in L1/L2
contexts
Babak Khoshnevisan
[email protected]
What do we know about idioms?
Research Questions:
1.
What are different models and hypotheses available regarding
idiomaticity?
1.
Which hypotheses or models of idiom processing have empirically
proved to be applicable for L2 contexts?
Compositionality
vs
Noncompositionality
Noncompositionality (Direct look-up)
kick the bucket
#
Other forms of idioms
e.g., Boby spilled the beans
Noncompositional Models
• Idiom List (Literal First) Hypothesis
Bobrow & Bell in 1973
• Lexical Representation (simultaneous processing) Hypothesis
Swinney & Cutler in 1979
• Direct Access Model (Figurative Hypothesis)
Gibbs (1980, 1986)
Limitations of Noncompositional
Approach
• syntactic flexibility as explicated is not arbitrary
• pedagogical implications of idiom teaching
• idioms have internal semantic structure
Compositional Approach
• internal semantic structure
• literal processing
Major Compositional Models
Idiom Decomposition Hypothesis
Gibbs (1994)
Configuration Model
Cacciari and Tabossi (1988)
Hybrid Model
Titone and Connine (1999)
L2 Idiom Processing and
Comprehension
Dual Idiom Representation (DIR)
Abel (2003)
Graded Salient Hypothesis
Giora (1997)
Parasitic Mechanism
Cieślicka (2015)
Diffusion Model
Liontas (2002)
Diffusion Model, Liontas (2002)
Conceptual Semantic Image (CSI) distance denotes " how close or distant a
target-language idiom is from its equivalent native-language idiom both
conceptually (i.e., in terms of the picture it evokes) and semantically (i.e.,
in terms of the literal meanings of its words).“
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS
Given these insights, it is argued that only 3 models (dual idiom
representation, idiom salient mode, and diffusion model) attend to L2
idiom processing
idiomatic competence “the ability to understand and use idioms
appropriately and accurately in varied socio-cultural contexts, in a manner
similar to that of native speakers, and with the least amount of mental
effort” (Liontas,2003)
then major factors such as the amount of exposure, L1 idiomatic
knowledge, type of idiom, instruction, and material as well as sufficient
context
idiom detection has primacy over literal/figurative debate in L2 context,
students should be heavily tasked with idiom detection in receptive skills
L2 learners develop their idiomatic competence through comparison and
contrast with their L1 idiomatic knowledge, harnessing L1in idiom
acquisition appears to be more important than explicit instruction
Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second
Language Research, 19(4), 329-358.
Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1(3), 343-346.
Cacciari, C. (1993). The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. Idioms: Processing, structure, and
interpretation, 27-55.
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. Advances
in psychology, 77, 217-240.
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668-683.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cieślicka, A. (2015). Idiom Acquisition and Processing by Second/Foreign Language Learners. In R. Heredia & A.
Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual Figurative Language Processing (pp. 208-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected
dimension. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 489–500).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Estill, R. B., & Kemper, S. (1982). Interpreting idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
11(6), 559-568.
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22-42.
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes,
9(1), 17-30.
Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition,
8(2), 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W., & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology,
21(1), 100-138.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics,
31(7), 919-929.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,
8(3), 183-206.
Glass, A. L. (1983). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(4), 429-442.
Glucksberg, S. (1991). Beyond literal meanings: The psychology of Allusion. Psychological Science, 2(3), 146-152.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional context. In Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. Idioms: Processing, structure,
and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24–44.
Liontas, J. I. (2002). Exploring second language learners’ notions of idiomaticity. System: An International Journal of
Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 289–313.
Liontas, J. I. (2007). The eye never sees what the brain understands: Making sense of idioms in second languages, Lingua et
Linguistica, 1(2), 25-44.
Liontas, J. I. (2001). That’s all Greek to me! The comprehension and interpretation of modernGreek phrasal idioms. The
Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 1(1), 1-32.
www.readingmatrix.com/articles/john_liontas/article.pdf.
Liontas, J. I. (2003). Killing two birds with one stone: Understanding Spanish VP idioms in andout of context. Hispania,
86(2), 289-301.
Liontas, J. I. (2002a). Vivid phrasal idioms and the lexical-image continuum. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 71 – 109.
Newmeyer, F. (1972). The insertion of idioms. Chicago Linguistic Society 1(8), 294-302.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 7,491-534.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of
context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465-477.
Short, B. (2014). On the psycholinguistic activation of idioms’ parts. Lingua Frankly, 2(1).
Smolka, E., Rabanus, S., & Rösler, F. (2007). Processing verbs in German idioms: Evidence against the configuration
hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(3), 213-231.
Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 18(5), 523-534.
Steinel, M.P., Hulstijn, J.H., & Steinel, W. (2007). Second language learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of
direction of learning, direction of testing, idiom imageability, and idiom transparency. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29, 449–484.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions.
Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1655-1674.
Van der Linden, E. J. (1992). Incremental processing and the hierarchical lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 18(2), 219238.
Wasow, T., Sag, I., & Nunberg, G. (1983). Idioms: An interim report. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of
Linguistics, Tokyo, 102-105.
Warren, B. (2005). A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 35-54.
Williams, E. S. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic inquiry, 8, 101-139.