Passivizability of Idioms: Has the Wrong Tree Been Barked Up?

Abstract

A growing number of studies support the partial compositionality of idiomatic phrases, while idioms are thought to vary in their syntactic flexibility. Some idioms, like kick the bucket, have been classified as inflexible and incapable of being passivized without losing their figurative interpretation (i.e., the bucket was kicked ≠ died). Crucially, this has never been substantiated by empirical findings. In the current study, we used eye-tracking to examine whether the passive forms of (flexible and inflexible) idioms retain or lose their figurative meaning. Active and passivized idioms ( he kicked the bucket/the bucket was kicked) and incongruous active and passive control phrases (he kicked the apple/the apple was kicked) were inserted in sentences biasing the figurative meaning of the respective idiom ( die). Active idioms served as a baseline. We hypothesized that if passivized idioms retain their figurative meaning ( the bucket was kicked = died), they should be processed more efficiently than the control phrases, since their figurative meaning would be congruous in the context. If, on the other hand, passivized idioms lose their figurative interpretation ( the bucket was kicked = the pail was kicked), then their meaning should be just as incongruous as that of both control phrases, in which case we would expect no difference in their processing. Eye movement patterns demonstrated a processing advantage for passivized idioms (flexible and inflexible) over control phrases, thus indicating that their figurative meaning was not compromised. These findings challenge classifications of idiom flexibility and highlight the creative nature of language.

How Does Modification Affect the Processing of Formulaic Language? Evidence from L1 and L2 Speakers of Chinese

“…Crucially, the processing advantage for FL over novel language has also been observed in their modified forms, with two (i.e., short-insertion; e.g., 坐一次飞机 'take the plane for once' vs 修一次飞机 'fix the plane for once') and even four Chinese characters inserted in the middle of the phrase (i.e., long-insertion; e.g., 坐那架真的飞机 'take that real plane' vs 修那架真的飞机 'fix that real plane'). This finding is in line with existing research (e.g., Geeraert et al, 2017;Kyriacou et al, 2020;Molinaro et al, 2013;Vilkaitė, 2016a;. For example, in Vilkaitė (2016a) and , L1 English users were asked to read sentences embedded with Verb+Noun collocations and relative controls in their original and modified forms, with three words inserted in the middle of the phrase (e.g., provide (some of the) information vs compare (some of the) information).…”

“…While the present finding is consistent with most earlier studies pertaining to modified FL processing (e.g., Geeraert et al, 2017;Kyriacou et al, 2020;Molinaro et al, 2013;Vilkaitė, 2016a;, it is somewhat inconsistent with McGlone et al…”

“…It is important to explore the role of these factors. This is because the majority of existing studies focused on only one level of modification degree (e.g., Geeraert, Baayen, & Newman, 2017;Haeuser, Baum, & Titone, 2020;Kyriacou, Conklin, & Thompson, 2020;McGlone, Glucksberg, & Cacciari, 1994;Molinaro, Canal, Vespignani, Pesciarelli, & Cacciari, 2013;Vilkaitė, 2016a;, one age group of children (e.g., Hallin & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2017;Skarabela, Ota, O'Connor, & Arnon, 2021), one proficiency group (e.g., Hernández, Costa, & Arnon, 2016;Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007;Siyanova-Chanturia & Janssen, 2018;Yi, Lu, & Ma, 2017), and one L1 background (e.g., Carrol & Conklin, 2014aCarrol et al, 2016). It remains largely unclear in the current literature whether and how different the processing of FL is with different modification degrees; whether and how different the processing of FL is among different age groups.…”

“…This supposition was further evidenced in a recent eye-tracking study. In this study, Kyriacou, Conklin, and Thompson (2020) had L1 users read ambiguous idioms and relative controls in their active (e.g., he kicked the bucket vs he kicked the apple) and passive forms (e.g., the bucket was kicked vs the apple was kicked). All phrases were embedded in sentence context, with a bias towards the figurative meaning of the respective idiom.…”

“…The processing advantage for modified FL was evidenced not only in figurative FSs (e.g., Kyriacou et al, 2020) but also in literal FSs (e.g., Vilkaitė, 2016a;. For example, in a self-paced reading study (word-by-word presentation), Molinaro, Canal, Vespignani, Pesciarelli, and Cacciari (2013) asked L1 users to read sentences embedded with Italian collocational complex prepositions (CCPs).…”