{"title":"Not Batting an Eye: Figurative Meanings of L2 Idioms Do Not Interfere with Literal Uses","authors":"Marianna Kyriacou, Franziska Köder","doi":"10.3390/languages9010032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Encountering idioms (hit the sack = “go to bed”) in a second language (L2) often results in a literal-first understanding (“literally hit a sack”). The figurative meaning is retrieved later, subject to idiom familiarity and L2 proficiency, and typically at a processing cost. Intriguingly recent findings report the overextension of idiom use in inappropriate contexts by advanced L2 users, with greater L2 proficiency somewhat mitigating this effect. In this study, we tested the tenability of this finding by comparing eye-movement patterns for idioms used literally, vs. literal control phrases (hit the dirt) in an eye-tracking-while-reading paradigm. We hypothesised that if idiom overextension holds, processing delays should be observed for idioms, as the (over)activated but contextually irrelevant figurative meanings would cause interference. In contrast, unambiguous control phrases should be faster to process. The results demonstrated undifferentiated processing for idioms used literally and control phrases across measures, with L2 proficiency affecting both similarly. Therefore, the findings do not support the hypothesis that advanced L2 users overextend idiom use in inappropriate contexts, nor that L2 proficiency modulates this tendency. The results are also discussed in light of potential pitfalls pertaining to idiom priming under typical experimental settings.","PeriodicalId":510372,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":"4 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9010032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Encountering idioms (hit the sack = “go to bed”) in a second language (L2) often results in a literal-first understanding (“literally hit a sack”). The figurative meaning is retrieved later, subject to idiom familiarity and L2 proficiency, and typically at a processing cost. Intriguingly recent findings report the overextension of idiom use in inappropriate contexts by advanced L2 users, with greater L2 proficiency somewhat mitigating this effect. In this study, we tested the tenability of this finding by comparing eye-movement patterns for idioms used literally, vs. literal control phrases (hit the dirt) in an eye-tracking-while-reading paradigm. We hypothesised that if idiom overextension holds, processing delays should be observed for idioms, as the (over)activated but contextually irrelevant figurative meanings would cause interference. In contrast, unambiguous control phrases should be faster to process. The results demonstrated undifferentiated processing for idioms used literally and control phrases across measures, with L2 proficiency affecting both similarly. Therefore, the findings do not support the hypothesis that advanced L2 users overextend idiom use in inappropriate contexts, nor that L2 proficiency modulates this tendency. The results are also discussed in light of potential pitfalls pertaining to idiom priming under typical experimental settings.
在第二语言(L2)中遇到成语(hit the sack ="上床睡觉")时,往往会产生字面先行的理解("literally hit a sack")。形象化的含义要在稍后才能检索到,这取决于对成语的熟悉程度和第二语言的熟练程度,而且通常要付出一定的处理成本。有趣的是,最近的研究结果表明,高级 L2 用户在不恰当的语境中过度扩展成语的使用,而 L2 熟练程度的提高在一定程度上缓解了这种影响。在本研究中,我们在眼动跟踪阅读范式中比较了按字面意思使用的成语与按字面意思使用的对照短语(hit the dirt)的眼动模式,从而检验了这一发现是否站得住脚。我们假设,如果成语过度扩展成立,那么成语的处理就会出现延迟,因为(过度)激活但与上下文无关的比喻意义会造成干扰。相比之下,无歧义的控制短语的处理速度应该更快。结果表明,在不同的测量中,成语的字面意义和控制短语的处理没有区别,第二语言能力对两者的影响相似。因此,研究结果并不支持高级 L2 用户在不恰当的语境中过度使用成语的假设,也不支持 L2 能力会调节这种倾向的假设。此外,我们还结合典型实验环境下成语引物的潜在误区对研究结果进行了讨论。