1989
DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90004-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
135
2
16

Year Published

1998
1998
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 236 publications
(159 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
6
135
2
16
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the constituent words of some idioms bear a substantial relation to the figurative meaning (e.g., question in pop the question), whereas the constituent words of other idioms do not (e.g., kick the bucket). The effects of semantic transparency are not consistent across experimental results, with some studies finding that increased semantic transparency leads to faster initial idiom processing (e.g., Gibbs 1992; Gibbs and Nayak 1989;Gibbs, Nayak, Bolton and Keppel 1989;Gibbs, Nayak and Cutting, 1989), while other studies find that it does not (e.g., Cieślicka 2012;Abel 2003;Tabossi, Fanari and Wolf 2008;Titone and Connine 1994a). Crucially, most studies that have found a link between idiom processing and semantic transparency have involved an explicit judgement task regarding the meaning of the idiom.…”
Section: Definitionsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…For example, the constituent words of some idioms bear a substantial relation to the figurative meaning (e.g., question in pop the question), whereas the constituent words of other idioms do not (e.g., kick the bucket). The effects of semantic transparency are not consistent across experimental results, with some studies finding that increased semantic transparency leads to faster initial idiom processing (e.g., Gibbs 1992; Gibbs and Nayak 1989;Gibbs, Nayak, Bolton and Keppel 1989;Gibbs, Nayak and Cutting, 1989), while other studies find that it does not (e.g., Cieślicka 2012;Abel 2003;Tabossi, Fanari and Wolf 2008;Titone and Connine 1994a). Crucially, most studies that have found a link between idiom processing and semantic transparency have involved an explicit judgement task regarding the meaning of the idiom.…”
Section: Definitionsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Contrary to the traditional view based on which idioms are noncompositional, many idiomatic phrases appear to be decomposable or analyzable, with the meanings of their parts contributing independently to their overall figurative meaning (Gibbs &Nayak, 1989). Titone (1999) holds that the previous linguistic analyses and processing studies, suggesting traditional noncompositional definitions of idiomaticity, and processing models base on these definitions are inadequate by themselves.…”
Section: Background To the Studymentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Idioms whose individual parts do not contribute to the overall figurative meanings are semantically nondecomposable (e.g., kick the bucket and shoot the breeze). This is because people experience difficulty in breaking these phrases in to their component parts (Gibbs &Nayak, 1989).…”
Section: Background To the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(p. 48) Fernando & Flavell (1981) proposed that idioms are non-compositional because their meaning cannot be concluded from the sum of the individual elements. However, other researchers, such as Gibbs & Nayak (1989) (Zyzik, 2011). According to Gan (2014), idioms "range along a continuum of compositionality or analyzability" (p. 935).…”
Section: B Characteristics Of Idiomsmentioning
confidence: 99%