Idioms show effects of meaning relatedness and dominance similar to those seen for ambiguous words

Abstract

Does the language comprehension system resolve ambiguities for single-and multiple-word units similarly? We investigate this question by examining whether two constructs with robust effects on ambiguous word processingmeaning relatedness and meaning dominancehave similar influences on idiom processing. Eye tracking showed that: (1) idioms with more related figurative and literal meanings were read faster, paralleling findings for ambiguous words, and (2) meaning relatedness and meaning dominance interacted to drive eye movements on idioms just as they do on polysemous ambiguous words. These findings are consistent with a language comprehension system that resolves ambiguities similarly regardless of literality or the number of words in the unit.

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

“…When the VPC optimally matches what is likely stored in the lexicon (i.e., opaque, adjacent form) the meaning is retrieved quickly (Titone et al, 2019). However, when this mapping is less frequent or familiar, retrieval is less rapid, which aligns with recent work demonstrating that more figuratively-dominant idioms are read more quickly than idioms with more balanced figurative-literal meanings (Milburn and Warren, 2019). Similarly, when the VPC is semantically decomposable or transparent, reading time increases because the meaning is being constructed on the spot.…”

Resolving Figurative Expressions During Reading: The Role of Familiarity, Transparency, and Context

“…literal meanings do interfere with idiom processing (e.g. Findlay & Carrol, 2019;Milburn & Warren, 2019;Titone & Libben, 2014) and the component words of idioms do contribute to how they are understood and processed (e.g. Hamblin & Gibbs, 1999;Smolka, Rabanus & Rösler, 2007), but at least in our study, these seem to have little effect on how highly familiar phrases are read.…”

Context and Literality in Idiom Processing: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading

“…Here, literality, as defined by the potential for literal interpretation and examined as a binary variable, was shown to interact with context in idiomatic processing in a critical manner: literality may cause processing to proceed either more or less flexibly (concerning high-literality and low-literality idioms respectively). However, as discussed briefly in the introduction, this factor overlaps critically with other idiomatic properties such as ambiguity (e.g., Cacciari and Tabossi 1988 ), saliency (e.g., Giora 1997 ), and even meaning dominance (e.g., Milburn and Warren 2019 ), and it is unclear precisely which of and to what extent these factors may have impacted the results of the current study. Although high- or low-literality idioms can greatly overlap with ambiguous and non-ambiguous idioms respectively, these two terms differ from one another in that literality accounts only for the potential of a literal interpretation; ambiguity should also account for the likelihood of such an interpretation, as an idiom is only ambiguous if both interpretations are actually likely.…”

“…Although high- or low-literality idioms can greatly overlap with ambiguous and non-ambiguous idioms respectively, these two terms differ from one another in that literality accounts only for the potential of a literal interpretation; ambiguity should also account for the likelihood of such an interpretation, as an idiom is only ambiguous if both interpretations are actually likely. This likelihood for ambiguity is also complicated by subjective familiarity with an idiom’s figurative and literal uses as well as the dominance of such uses (e.g., Cronk et al 1993 ; Milburn and Warren 2019 ), all factors which contribute to the salience of a particular meaning (see e.g., Giora 1997 ). Though some idioms may have a high-literality, or have both plausible literal and figurative interpretations, these two interpretations may not be equally salient for users.…”