No abstract

We are grateful to George Kellas and Paula Schwanenflugel for their comments on earlier drafts.

Syntactic and semantic processing of literal and idiomatic phrases were investigated with a priming procedure. In 3 experiments, participants named targets that were syntactically appropriate or inappropriate completions for semantically unrelated sentence contexts. Sentences ended with incomplete idioms (kick the...) and were biased for either a literal (ball) or an idiomatic (bucket) completion. Syntactically appropriate targets were named more quickly than inappropriate ones for both contextual biases, suggesting that syntactic analysis occurs for idioms. In a final experiment, targets were either concrete (expected) or abstract (unexpected) nouns. For literal sentences, the abstract targets were named more slowly than the concrete targets. In contrast, there was no concreteness effect for idiomatic sentences, suggesting that the literal meaning of the idiom is not processed. Overall, the results provide evidence for dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing.

Backward priming was investigated under conditions similar to those used in lexical ambiguity research. Subjects received prime-target word pairs that were associated either unidirectionally (BABY-STORK) or bidirectionally (BABY-CRY). In the first experiment, targets were presented 500 ms following the onset of visual primes, and subjects made naming or lexical decision responses to the targets. Forward priming was obtained in all conditions, while backward priming (i.e., priming for pairs in which there was a unidirectional target-to-prime association, as in BABY-STORK) occurred only with lexical decision. In the second experiment, primes were presented auditorily, either in isolation or in a sentence. Targets followed the offset of the primes either immediately or after 200 ms. Backward priming occurred with both response tasks, but only when the prime was an isolated word. In addition, backward priming decreased over time with the naming task, but not with lexical decision. These results suggest that the locus of the backward priming effect is different for the two response tasks. Further, the lack of a backward priming effect with sentence contexts suggests that backward priming cannot account for the demonstrations of multiple access in the lexical ambiguity literature. These results, therefore, support a context-independent view of lexical access.

No abstract