Figuring Out How Verb-Particle Constructions Are Understood During L1 and L2 Reading

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to investigate first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading of verb particle constructions (VPCs) among English–French bilingual adults. VPCs, or phrasal verbs, are highly common collocations of a verb paired with a particle, such as eat up or chew out , that often convey a figurative meaning. VPCs vary in form ( eat up the candy vs. eat the candy up ) and in other factors, such as the semantic contribution of the constituent words to the overall meaning (semantic transparency) and frequency. Much like classic forms of idioms, VPCs are difficult for L2 users. Here, we present two experiments that use eye-tracking to discover factors that influence the ease with which VPCs are processed by bilingual readers. In Experiment 1, we compared L1 reading of adjacent vs. split VPCs, and then explored whether the general pattern was driven by item-level factors. L1 readers did not generally find adjacent VPCs ( eat up the candy) easier to process than split VPCs ( eat the candy up) ; however, VPCs low in co-occurrence strength (i.e., low semantic transparency) and high in frequency were easiest to process in the adjacent form during first pass reading. In Experiment 2, we compared L2 reading of adjacent vs. split VPCs, and then explored whether the general pattern varied with item-level or participant-level factors. L2 readers generally allotted more second pass reading time to split vs. adjacent forms, and there was some evidence that this pattern was greater for L2 English readers who had less English experience. In contrast with L1 reading, there was no influence of item differences on L2 reading behavior. These data suggest that L1 readers may have lexicalized VPC representations that are directly retrieved during comprehension, whereas L2 readers are more likely to compositionally process VPCs given their more general preference for adjacent particles, as demonstrated by longer second pass reading time for all split items.

Plausibility and structural reanalysis in L1 and L2 sentence comprehension

“…This group experienced processing difficulty after the split particle regardless of the nature of the VPC. Interestingly, these findings are similar to those of Tiv and colleagues (2019), who also found a processing cost for split VPC sentences that was uninfluenced by item-level characteristics related to VPC frequency and semantic transparency. Taken together, these findings suggest that non-native speakers have general processing difficulty related to interpreting the components of VPC constructions, especially when these components are separated by intervening material.…”

“…Specifically, they had processing difficulty for split particle sentences with opaque VPCs and with longer object NPs. Tiv and colleagues (2019) used eye-tracking to examine the comprehension of split and adjacent VPCs in similar French–English bilinguals as well as in L1 English readers. The results indicated essentially no first- or second-pass reading difficulty for split VPCs in the L1 English group.…”

Are figurative interpretations of idioms directly retrieved, compositionally built, or both? Evidence from eye movement measures of reading.

“…Thus, when readers first encounter a verb, they simply activate its meaning as they do not yet know that verb is part of an idiomatic construction. Consequently, if the idiomatic construction turns out to be nondecomposable in that it has low verb relatedness, getting to the idiom’s figurative meaning requires readers to inhibit the verb meaning previously activated and boost activation of the idioms figurative meaning (a similar dynamic plays out in verb particle constructions, e.g., Blais & Gonnerman, 2013; Herbay, Gonnerman, & Baum, 2018; Smolka et al, 2018; Tiv et al, 2019). However, if the verb meaning previously activated is still relevant to the figurative meaning of the idiom, which as a whole is crucially different from its normal literal meaning (e.g., to figuratively vs. literally save your skin ), the comprehension process becomes more laboured.…”

“Bread and butter” or “butter and bread”? Nonnatives’ processing of novel lexical patterns in context

“…It is well-established that native speakers recognize lexical patterns faster and process their phrase-level meaning more easily than other nonrecurrent combinations of words that do not show any significant degree of cohesion or fixedness. This has been shown for idioms (e.g., Carrol & Conklin, 2020;Conklin & Schmitt, 2008;Libben & Titone, 2008;Rommers et al, 2013), phrasal verbs (e.g., Blais & Gonnerman, 2013;Matlock & Heredia, 2002;Tiv et al, 2019) and binomials (e.g., Arcara et al, 2012;Carrol & Conklin, 2020). The processing advantage for lexical patterns by native speakers has prompted researchers to explore these patterns in non-native speakers.…”