Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T20:18:32.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Contrasting Bilingual and Monolingual Idiom Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Debra Titone ,
Georgie Columbus ,
Veronica Whitford ,
Julie Mercier  and
Maya Libben
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Debra Titone
Affiliation:
McGill University
Georgie Columbus
Affiliation:
McGill University
Veronica Whitford
Affiliation:
McGill University
Julie Mercier
Affiliation:
McGill University
Maya Libben
Affiliation:
McGill University
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In this chapter, we survey what is currently known about bilingual idiom processing and present data from a study that investigates three questions about the comprehension of idioms in English-French bilinguals. First, do the linguistic factors that control monolingual idiom comprehension (e.g., familiarity, literal plausibility, semantic decomposability; Libben & Titone, 2008) similarly control bilingual comprehension? Second, does an idiom’s cross-language similarity affect comprehension? Third, does native language status interact with idiom processing in these respects? To address these questions, we conducted a comprehension study where English-French bilinguals read English sentences that included idioms from a prior normative first-language study that were further coded for their similarity to idioms in French. We also manipulated whether the idiom-final word was presented in English (intact condition) or French (code-switched condition). The results suggest that bilinguals are sensitive to the same linguistic factors that control idiom processing for monolinguals (i.e., familiarity) and that previous work suggesting an increased role for semantic decomposability (Abel, 2003) may actually be due to cross-language overlap. The implications for bilingual lexical representation and processing are discussed.

Keywords: bilingualism, idiom processing, code-switching, figurative language processing, idiomatic expressions

When Joan Foster visited her Polish lover, Paul, she stumbled upon several English novels penned by an improbably named Mavis Quilp.

Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Figurative Language Processing , pp. 171 - 207
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, D., & Conklin, K. (2013). Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. PLOS one. Retrieved from: CrossRef
Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23, 104–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language, 116, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irujo, S. (1993). Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 31, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1-L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Oxford/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J., Sholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 875–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreou, G., Vlachos, F., & Andreou, E. (2005). Affecting factors in second language learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 429–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I., & Cohen-Priva, U. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration [Special Issue]. Parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models of linguistic knowledge, Language and Speech, 56, 349–371.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwood, M. (1976). Lady Oracle. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D.M., & Bolker, B. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects modeling using S4 classes R package [Computer Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: (R package version 0.999999-2).
Bobrow, S., & Bell, S. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1, 343–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H. (1998). A cross-linguistic analysis of idiom comprehension by native and non-native speakers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.Google Scholar
Burt, J. (1992). Against the lexical representation of idioms. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 46, 582–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. In Simpson, G.B. (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 217–240). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., Padovani, R., & Corradini, P. (2007). Exploring the relationship between individuals’ speed of processing and their comprehension of spoken idioms. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 417–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S. (2009). Descriptions of French idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, literality, compositionality predictability, and knowledge of meaning. Année Psychologique, 109, 463–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P., Miyake, A., & Just, M. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse Processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23, 104–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A. (2012). Do nonnative language speakers chew the fat and spill the beans with different brain hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with the divided visual field paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. .
Cieślicka, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain & Language, 116, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Columbus, G. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are different types of MWUs psycholinguistically valid? An eye-tracking study. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language in communication and acquisition (pp. 194–210). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Columbus, G. (2012). An analysis of the processing of multiword units in sentence reading and unit presentation using eye movement data: Implications for theories of MWUs (Unpliblished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Columbus, G. (2013). In support of multiword unit classifications: Corpus and human rating data validate phraseological classifications of three different multiword unit types. Yearbook of Phraseology, 4, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers. Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A. (1992). Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching. In Arnaud, P. & Béjoint, H. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.1–12). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronk, B., Lima, S., & Schweigert, W. (1993). Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronk, B., & Schweigert, W. (1992). The Comprehension of Idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition, 25, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchek, J., Balota, D., Ferraro, F., Gernsbacher, M., Faust, M., & Connor, L. (1992). The inhibition of irrelevant information in young and older adults. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 35–35.Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. (2009). Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M., van der Linden, E-J., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.). (1995). Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fanari, R., Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (2010). The role of idiom length and context in spoken idiom comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, M., & Gernsbacher, M. (1996). Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain & Language, 53, 234–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M., & Faust, M. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245–262.Google ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, M., Varner, K., & Faust, M. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. (1992). What do idioms really mean?Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Nayak, N. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R., Nayak, N., Bolton, J., & Keppel, M. (1989). Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition, 17, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R., Nayak, N., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonnerman, L., & Hayes, C. (2005). The professor chewed the students out: Effects of dependency, length, and adjacency on word order preferences in sentences with verb particle constructions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 785–790). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gunter, T., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 643–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamblin, J., & Gibbs, R. (1999). Why you can’t kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heredia, R.R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irujo, S. (1993). Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 31, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E-J., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 133–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2003). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobloch, C. (2009). Once more: Particle verb constructions. Zeitschrift Fur Germanistische Linguistik, 37, 544–564.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1-L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 381–390.Google ScholarPubMed
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., & Heredia, R.R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In Heredia, R.R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2002). On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, M., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1994). Working-memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J., & De Carrico, J. (1989). Lexical phrases, speech acts and teaching conversation: Vocabulary acquisition. AILA, 6, 118–139.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nekrasova, T. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59, 647–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nippold, M., & Duthie, J. (2003). Mental imagery and idiom comprehension: A comparison of school-age children and adults. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 46, 788–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nippold, M., & Taylor, C. (2002). Judgments of idiom familiarity and transparency: A comparison of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 45, 384–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nippold, M., Taylor, C., & Baker, J. (1996). Idiom understanding in Australian youth: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 39, 442–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60, 651–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., & Crago, M. (2007). French-English bilingual children’s acquisition of the past tense. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on language development Vols 1 and 2 (pp. 497–507). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2008a). Bilingual effects are not unique, only more salient. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 11,181–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2008b). Bilingualism and neuropsychiatric disorders. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language & Communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Peterson, R., Burgess, C., Dell, G., & Eberhard, K. (2001). Dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1223–1237.Google ScholarPubMed
Popiel, S., & McRae, K. (1988). The figurative and literal senses of idioms, or all idioms are not used equally. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prado, E., & Ullman, M. (2009). Can imageability help us draw the line between storage and composition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 849–866.Google ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.0.0) [Computer Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M., Derwing, T., Manimtim, L., & Thomson, R. (2010). Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 66, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiewicz, J. (2008a). Cognitive profiles of (un)successful FL learners: A cluster analytical study. Modern Language Journal, 92, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiewicz, J. (2008b). Measuring foreign language learning aptitude. Polish adaptation of the modern language aptitude test by Carroll and Sapon. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 44, 569–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: A user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A., Kroll, J., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22, 106–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, W. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, W. (1991). The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, W., & Cronk, B. (1993). Ratings of the familiarity of idioms figurative meanings and the likelihood of literal meanings among United States college-students. Current Psychology-Research & Reviews, 11, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, W., & Moates, D. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (Eds.). (2011). Formulaic sequences: Do they exist and do they matter? Methodological and analytic frontiers in lexical research (Part II) [Special issue]. The Mental Lexicon, 6, 1.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C. (2012). The processing of lexical sequences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, N., & Arnon, I. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In Divjak, D. & Gries, S. (Eds.), Frequency effects in language (pp. 127–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009a). Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009b). Long-term relationships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 725–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S., Levelt, W., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinel, M., Hulstijn, J., & Steinel, W. (2007). Second language idiom 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2005). Spoken idiom recognition: Meaning retrieval and word expectancy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 465–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 313–327.Google ScholarPubMed
Tabossi, P., Wolf, K., & Koterle, S. (2008). Idiom syntax: Idiosyncratic or principled?International Journal of Psychology, 43, 415–415.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). The activation of idiomatic meaning in spoken language comprehension. In Cacciari, C. & Tabossi, P., (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 145–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1994a). Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1126–1138.Google ScholarPubMed
Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1994b). Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint and L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37, 1412–1431.Google ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2009). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading, word and sentence recall, and free recall with event-related brain potential recordings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R.H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B.L., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading experiments, word and sentence recall tasks, and off-line semantic ratings. Language Learning, 61, 569–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Tucker, B.V. (2011). The effects of n-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 6, 302–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. (2006) The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structure hypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 97–105.Google Scholar
Vanlancker-Sidtis, D. (2003). Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682–1700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, S., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. (2000). Working memory and the processing of ambiguous words in compounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35, 125–125.Google Scholar
Wagner, S., & Gunter, T. (2004). Determining inhibition: Individual differences in the ‘lexicon context’ trade-off during lexical ambiguity resolution in working memory. Experimental Psychology, 51, 290–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 63, 13–33.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×