Production of ambiguous idioms in English: A reading aloud study

Abstract

In a reading‐aloud experiment, we investigated the on‐line processing of English idioms from a production perspective. The stimuli were ambiguous idioms used figuratively and literally, and matched novel control phrases. The analysis of the articulatory durations showed a processing advantage for idioms over controls. Further, we found that figurative meanings were articulated somewhat faster than their literal counterparts. The results suggest that the processing advantage for idioms over control phrases, previously reported in comprehension studies, is also present during their production. Unlike the comprehension idiom literature, however, the two idiom meanings might be processed differently during reading aloud. The study concludes with directions for future research, and a case is made for why this line of research is important for the field of applied linguistics.

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

“…Despite the variety of research methods being used, these investigations confirmed the processing advantage for figurative FSs over novel phrases in sentence context and in both decomposable and non-decomposable figurative FSs. The processing advantage for figurative FL over novel language was also confirmed in recent investigations (post-2010; e.g., Hallin & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2017;Jolsvai, McCauley, & Christiansen, 2013;Rommers, Dijkstra, & Bastiaansen, 2013;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018).…”

“…The processing advantage for L1 FSs, figurative or literal, over infrequent novel phrases has long been affirmed in the literature (e.g., Arnon & Snider, 2010;Ellis et al, 2009;Janssen & Barber, 2012;Jolsvai et al, 2013;Millar, 2011;Molinaro et al, 2008;Siyanova-Chanturia et al, 2017;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018;Swinney & Cutler, 1979;Vespignani et al, 2009). However, the relevant evidence The answer is yes.…”

“…The processing advantage for FL over novel language has long been evidenced in the literature. However, the relevant evidence pertains almost exclusively to young adults (educated university students in most cases; e.g., Arnon & Snider, 2010;Ellis et al, 2009;Janssen & Barber, 2012;Jolsvai et al, 2013;Millar, 2011;Molinaro et al, 2008;Siyanova-Chanturia et al, 2017;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018;Swinney & Cutler, 1979;Vespignani et al, 2009), with children being largely disregarded. To the best of my knowledge, only three published studies explored FL processing in children (i.e., Bannard & Matthews, 2008;Hallin & Van Lancker, 2017;Jiang et al, 2020;Skarabela et al, 2021 (unpublished)).…”

“…FL is markedly different from novel language in phonology in several ways. First, according to online production studies (e.g., Hallin & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2017;Siyanova-Chanturia & Janssen, 2018;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018), FL is often articulated with a faster speech rate than novel language. Second, FL is more resistant to internal pauses or hesitations than novel language (e.g., Wray, 2004).…”

“…Some researchers found that these two meanings were processed in parallel in L1 users (e.g., Estill & Kemper, 1982;Glass, 1983;Kemper, 1986). On the contrary, other researchers argue that these two meanings are processed distinctively in a serial process (e.g., Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988;Gibbs, 1980;Gibbes, Bogdanovich, Sykes, & Barr, 1997;Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, & Antos, 1978;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018;Yang, Ahn, & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2015). Some researchers claim that the figurative meaning should be processed with priority over the literal one (e.g., Gibbs, 1980, Experiment 1;Ortony et al, 1978, Experiment 2;Schweigert & Moates, 1988;Siyanova-Chanturia & Lin, 2018;Yang et al, 2015).…”