Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.1–18

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Semantic comprehension of idioms

Their effectiveness and psychological reliability

 | Kashmar Higher Education Institute
 | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00048.erf
Abstract
This study intends to test the Graded Salience Hypothesis, in order to investigate the factors involved in comprehension. This research considered predictions derived from this hypothesis by evaluating the salience of idioms in the Persian language. We intended to measure Reading Time (RTs), and the design comprised 2 Contexts (figurative, literal), 3 Types of Statements (familiar vs. unfamiliar vs. less familiar) and RTs (long, short, equal). Two types of contexts (figuratively inviting and literally inviting contexts) were prepared. The software for this experiment was prepared for the purpose of self-paced reading experiments. Two pretests were performed. In the first pretest, participants rated the expressions on a 1–7 familiarity scale. The second pretest was designed to confirm that contexts are equally supportive. Then, expressions were divided according to their familiarity (familiar, less-familiar, unfamiliar). Sentences were used so that, according to the second pretest, their contexts would be equally supportive. Sentences were displayed on a PC, controlled by Windows 7. The self-paced reading task was applied using the Moving Windows software. In the first part of the experiment, participants read each idiom in figuratively inviting contexts and their RTs were recorded. In the second part of the experiment, participants read each idiom in literally inviting contexts and their RTs were recorded. Results of testing these idioms support the Graded Salience Hypothesis, but not entirely. Such findings suggested that sometimes context affects the access of salient information and a semi serial process is witnessed. Results indicate that the salient meaning of both familiar and less familiar idioms is figurative. In addition, salient meanings in the space following the unfamiliar idiom and the first word of the next (spillover) sentence, were both, figurative and literal.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Theoretical framework
    • 3.1Literal meaning/figurative meaning
    • 3.2The Graded Salience Hypothesis
    • 3.3The Graded Salience Hypothesis predictions
    • 3.4Familiarity
    • 3.5The retention/suppression hypothesis
    • 3.6The spillover hypothesis
    • 3.7Figurative language
    • 3.8Idiom
    • 3.9Self-paced Moving Windows tool
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants/materials
    • 4.2Instrumentation
    • 4.3Pretests
      • 4.3.1Pretest no. 1
      • 4.3.2Pretest no. 2
    • 4.4Procedure
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Investigation of the first question
    • 5.2Investigation of the second question
    • 5.3Investigation of the third question
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
    • 6.1Answer to question 1
    • 6.2Answer to question 2
    • 6.3Answer to question 3
    • 6.4Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (39)
References
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 361–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of language processing, (pp. 3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1999). On the nature and nurture of language. In E. Bizzi, P. Calissano & V. Volterra (Eds.), Frontiers of biology: The brain of Homo sapiens, (pp. 241–265). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blasko, G. D., & Connine, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 191, 295–308.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (1998). Frame-shifting and sentential integration, technical report. CogSci, 98(3).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, S., & Meshkatod Dini, M. (2013). A survey on optimal innovation and Salience Hypothesis in the Persian advertisement. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(12), 342–353.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, Sh., & Meshkatod Dini, M. (2014). Understanding irony in Graded Salience Hypothesis. The first conference on neuro-psychology (107–125). Linguistic Society of Iran.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Figurative language; A survey on the factors related to the semantic comprehension; Their effectiveness and psychological reliability, Ph.D. dissertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind, Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 58–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving twenty years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 256–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). On understanding familiar and less familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 311, 1601–1618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R., Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R. (2007a). Expecting irony: Context versus salience-sased effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 191, 115–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates non-literal interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 281, 89–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgements: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanko, S., & Pexman, P. M. (2001). Understanding irony: On-line processing of figurative and literal meaning. Poster presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. University of California: Santa Barbara.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1111, 228–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N. (1977). Propositional structure and illocutionary force. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kazemi, S. A., Araghi, S. M., & Bahramy, M. (2013). The role of conceptual metaphor in idioms and mental imagery in Persian speakers. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 38–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, I. (2000a). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2. Links & Letters, 71, 143–158.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 605–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1993). The empirical study of figurative language in literature. Poetics, 221, 151–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laurent, J., Denhières, G., Passerieux, C., Iakimova, G., & Hardy-Baylé, M. (2006). On understanding idiomatic language: The Salience Hypothesis assessed by ERPs. Brain Research, 10681, 151–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mirdehghan, M., Nejati, V., & Davoodi, E. (2012). A comprehensive study of Persian proverbs among monolingual and bilingual adolescents comparatively on the basis of the constraint satisfaction. Language Related Research, 12, 3(3), 193–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, R. K., & Binder, K. S. (2002). What do skilled readers do with the unselected meaning of an ambiguous word? In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on ambiguity resolution (pp. 139–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V., & Ghafel, B. (2012). Idiomatic expressions of number in Persian and English. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 19–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A. (2000). Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 291, 201–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasex Mahand, M., & Shamsod Dini, M. (2012). Semantic classification of Persian idioms: A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Adab Pajuhi, 201, 11–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 151, 47–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2000). The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 195–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zolfaqari, H. (2008). The difference between irony and proverb. Research on Persian Language and Literature Journal, 101, 109–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue