“Going to town”: Large-scale norming and statistical analysis of 870 American English idioms
Tóm tắt
An idiom is classically defined as a formulaic sequence whose meaning is comprised of more than the sum of its parts. For this reason, idioms pose a unique problem for models of sentence processing, as researchers must take into account how idioms vary and along what dimensions, as these factors can modulate the ease with which an idiomatic interpretation can be activated. In order to help ensure external validity and comparability across studies, idiom research benefits from the availability of publicly available resources reporting ratings from a large number of native speakers. Resources such as the one outlined in the current paper facilitate opportunities for consensus across studies on idiom processing and help to further our goals as a research community. To this end, descriptive norms were obtained for 870 American English idioms from 2,100 participants along five dimensions: familiarity, meaningfulness, literal plausibility, global decomposability, and predictability. Idiom familiarity and meaningfulness strongly correlated with one another, whereas familiarity and meaningfulness were positively correlated with both global decomposability and predictability. Correlations with previous norming studies are also discussed.
Từ khóa
#Cognitive PsychologyTài liệu tham khảo
Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2013). Norms and comprehension times for 305 French idiomatic expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1259–1271. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0331-4
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expression: The contribution of word meanings. In G. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 217–240). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9
Caillies, S. (2009). Descriptions de 300 expressions idiomatiques: Familiarité, connaissance de leur signification, plausibilité littérale, «décomposabilité» et «prédictibilité». L'Année Psychologique, 109, 463–508. doi:10.4074/s0003503309003054
Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al’.s (1988) metaphor norms. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 330–340. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0575-2
Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355–362.
Colombo, L. (1993). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 163–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronk, B. C., Lima, S. D., & Schweigert, W. A. (1993). Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 59–82.
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present [Database]. Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
Deignan, A. (2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In A. Stefanovich & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 106–122). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149–156. doi:10.3758/BF03213418
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100–138. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90004-2
Goldberg, A. (2007). Learning linguistic patterns. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 47, pp. 33–63). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Lee, W. (Ed.). (2000). Longman pocket idioms dictionary. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103–1121. doi:10.3758/MC.36.7.1103
Nordmann, E., Cleland, A. A., & Bull, R. (2014). Familiarity breeds dissent: Reliability analyses for British-English idioms on measures of familiarity, meaning, literality, and decomposability. Acta Psychologica, 149, 87–95. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.009
Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics.
Payne, B. R., Lee, C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Revisiting the incremental effects of context on word processing: Evidence from single-word event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 52, 1456–1469. doi:10.1111/psyp.12515
Schweigert, W. A. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33–45.
Schweigert, W. A., & Cronk, B. C. (1992). Figurative meanings and the likelihood of literal meanings among U.S. college stuents. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 11, 325–345.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90284-6
Tabossi, P., Arduino, L., & Fanari, R. (2011). Descriptive norms for 245 Italian idiomatic expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 110–123. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0018-z
Thibodeau, P., & Durgin, F. H. (2008). Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 521–540. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.001
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1994a). Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1126–1138. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1126
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1994b). Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9, 247–270.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.
Titone, D., & Libben, M. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity, and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. Mental Lexicon, 9, 473–496.
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95–112. doi:10.3758/BF03198500
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.