What norming reveals about idioms: Making the case for a presuppositional account.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Nicholas Griffen, Ira Noveck
{"title":"What norming reveals about idioms: Making the case for a presuppositional account.","authors":"Nicholas Griffen, Ira Noveck","doi":"10.3758/s13421-025-01719-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While early accounts of idiomatic expressions proposed that they are compositional or else directly retrievable from memory, the multi-determined view posited that idiom comprehension depends on observable characteristics, such as meaningfulness, familiarity, literal plausibility, global decomposability, and final word predictability. This led researchers to periodically undertake norming tasks in which participants rate idioms on these dimensions. The current study extends this tradition while investigating 36 American English idioms, expressed as She/he verbed x noun (e.g., He fanned the flames). Study 1 introduced a new control (Nonsense idioms), which encourages the exploitation of a scale's lower end, while recruiting sub-samples of participants online for each of the five aforementioned dimensions. Our findings, which primarily concern correlations among dimensions, very largely confirm the prior findings. Study 2 introduced a novel norming dimension that we call presupposition strength. This asks participants to provide a likelihood score about background information that is not conventionally associated with each idiom. The 36 idioms were presented through a vignette (e.g., Tom fanned the flames at the meeting) after which we collected scores to a presuppositional probe question (e.g., How likely is it that there was tension before the meeting?). Participants' mean scores for an individual idiom's presupposition strength were compared to two yoked controls, a paraphrase (from dictionary definitions) and a nonsense idiom. Presuppositional strength for idiomatic expressions led to significantly superior scores, pointing to the importance of this feature to these figures. Intriguingly, correlations between presupposition strength and (Study 1's) meaningfulness and familiarity were statistically significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01719-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While early accounts of idiomatic expressions proposed that they are compositional or else directly retrievable from memory, the multi-determined view posited that idiom comprehension depends on observable characteristics, such as meaningfulness, familiarity, literal plausibility, global decomposability, and final word predictability. This led researchers to periodically undertake norming tasks in which participants rate idioms on these dimensions. The current study extends this tradition while investigating 36 American English idioms, expressed as She/he verbed x noun (e.g., He fanned the flames). Study 1 introduced a new control (Nonsense idioms), which encourages the exploitation of a scale's lower end, while recruiting sub-samples of participants online for each of the five aforementioned dimensions. Our findings, which primarily concern correlations among dimensions, very largely confirm the prior findings. Study 2 introduced a novel norming dimension that we call presupposition strength. This asks participants to provide a likelihood score about background information that is not conventionally associated with each idiom. The 36 idioms were presented through a vignette (e.g., Tom fanned the flames at the meeting) after which we collected scores to a presuppositional probe question (e.g., How likely is it that there was tension before the meeting?). Participants' mean scores for an individual idiom's presupposition strength were compared to two yoked controls, a paraphrase (from dictionary definitions) and a nonsense idiom. Presuppositional strength for idiomatic expressions led to significantly superior scores, pointing to the importance of this feature to these figures. Intriguingly, correlations between presupposition strength and (Study 1's) meaningfulness and familiarity were statistically significant.

规范对习语的启示:为预设叙述提供理由。
虽然早期对习语表达的描述认为它们是组成的,或者可以直接从记忆中检索到,但多决定观点认为,习语理解取决于可观察到的特征,如意义、熟悉度、字面合理性、整体可分解性和最终单词的可预测性。这导致研究人员定期进行规范任务,参与者在这些方面对习语进行评分。目前的研究扩展了这一传统,同时调查了36个美国英语习语,表达为她/他动词x名词(例如,他煽动火焰)。研究1引入了一种新的控制(无意义的习语),它鼓励利用量表的低端,同时为上述五个维度中的每一个在线招募参与者的子样本。我们的研究主要关注维度之间的相关性,这在很大程度上证实了之前的研究结果。研究2引入了一个新的规范维度,我们称之为预设强度。这个测试要求参与者提供一个关于背景信息的可能性评分,这些背景信息通常与每个习语无关。这36个习语是通过一个小插曲(例如,汤姆在会议上煽风点火)呈现的,之后我们对一个预设的调查问题(例如,会议前紧张的可能性有多大?)收集分数。参与者对单个成语预设强度的平均得分与两组对照进行了比较,一组是释义(从字典定义),另一组是无意义成语。习语表达的预设强度导致得分显著提高,表明这一特征对这些数字的重要性。有趣的是,预设强度与(研究1的)意义和熟悉度之间的相关性在统计上是显著的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Memory & Cognition
Memory & Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Memory & Cognition covers human memory and learning, conceptual processes, psycholinguistics, problem solving, thinking, decision making, and skilled performance, including relevant work in the areas of computer simulation, information processing, mathematical psychology, developmental psychology, and experimental social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信