LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Carrol, Gareth; Conklin, Kathy (2014)
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Monolingual speakers show priming for idiomatic sequences (e.g. a pain in the neck) relative to matched controls (e.g. a pain in the foot); single word translation equivalents show cross-language activation (e.g. dog–chien) for bilinguals. If the lexicon is heteromorphic (Wray, 2002), larger units may show cross-language priming in the same way as single words. We used the initial words of English idioms (e.g. to spill the . . . beans) and transliterated Chinese idioms (e.g. draw a snake and add . . . feet) as primes for the final words in a lexical decision task with high proficiency Chinese–English bilinguals and English monolinguals. Bilinguals responded to targets significantly faster when they completed a Chinese idiom (e.g. feet) than when they were presented with a matched control word (e.g. hair). The results are discussed in terms of conceptual activation and lexical translation processes, and are also incorporated into a dual route model of formulaic and novel language processing.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Baayen, R. H. (2009). languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics”. R Package version 0.955.
    • Bates, D. M., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixedeffects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32.
    • Bley-Vroman, R. (2002). Frequency in production, comprehension, and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 209-213.
    • Bobrow, S., & Bell, S. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cogition, 1, 343-346.
    • Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. In G. Simpson (ed.), Understanding word and sentence, pp. 217-240. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    • Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668-683.
    • Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 79-108.
    • Chen, H., & Ng, M. (1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects in Chinese-English bilinguals. Memory and Cogition, 17, 454-462.
    • Chung, K., Code, C., & Ball, M. (2004). Lexical and nonlexical speech automatisms in aphasic Cantonese speakers. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 2, 32- 42.
    • Cies´licka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115-144.
    • Code, C. (1994). Speech automatisation production in aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 8, 135-148.
    • Code, C. (2005). First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 6, 311-334.
    • Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72-89.
    • Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (1997). That's the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cogition, 25, 57-71.
    • De Groot, A., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90-123.
    • Durrant, P. (2008). High frequency collocations and second language learning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.
    • Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375-396.
    • Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29-62.
    • Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of the role in the task-based language production of native and nonnative speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, pp. 75-95. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    • Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cogition, 8, 149-156.
    • Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Semantic analyzability in children's understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
    • Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576- 593.
    • Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25, 38-61.
    • Isobe, Y. (2011). Representation and processing of formulaic sequences in L2 mental lexicon: How do Japanese EFL learners process multi-word expressions? JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 38-49.
    • Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433-445.
    • Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. Aitken, R. Bailey & N. Hamilton-Smith (eds.), The computer and literary studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    • Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
    • Kuiper, K., van Egmond, M., Kempen, G., & Sprenger, S. (2007). Slipping on superlemmas: Multi-word lexical items in speech production. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 313- 357.
    • Lin, M., & Leonard, S. (2012). Dictionary of 1000 Chinese idioms (revised edition). New York: Hippocrene Books.
    • Liu, Y., Li, P., Shu, H., Zhang, Q., & Chen, L. (2010). Structure and meaning in Chinese: An ERP study of idioms. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 615-630.
    • Matlock, T., & Heredia, R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 251- 274. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    • Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9-13.
    • Omazic, M. (2008). Processing of idioms and idiom modifications. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective, pp. 67-79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, pp. 191-225. London: Longman.
    • R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    • Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339-1362.
    • Schmitt, N. (2005). Formulaic language: Fixed and varied. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 6, 13-39.
    • Simon, H., Zhang, W., Zang, W., & Peng, R. (1989). STM capacity for Chinese words and idioms with visual and auditory presentations. In H. Simon (ed.), Models of thought (vol. 2), pp. 68-75. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    • Siyanova, A. (2010). On-line processing of multi-word sequences in a first and second language: Evidence from eye-tracking and ERP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.
    • Sprenger, S., Levelt, W., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161-184.
    • Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 523-534.
    • Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 313-327.
    • Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory and Cognition, 37, 529-540.
    • Tremblay, A., & Baayen, H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioural and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication, pp. 151-173. London: Continuum.
    • Ueno, T. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between the development of bilingual semantic organisation and interactive connectivity across languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin.
    • Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schimtt (ed.), Formulaic sequences, pp. 153-172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In M. Faust (ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language, pp. 342-367. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
    • Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. (2006). Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and righthemisphere-damaged subjects. Aphasiology, 20, 411- 426.
    • Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2009). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682-1700.
    • Wang, X. (2007). Does semantic activation spread across languages? An experimental study with Chinese-English bilinguals. Coyote Papers, 15, 90-99.
    • Warren, H. (1994). Oxford learner's dictionary of English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430- 449.
    • Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231- 254.
    • Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communicaton, 20, 1-28.
    • Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Gu, J., & Ji, F. (2013). ERP correlates of compositionality in Chinese idiom comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 89-112.
    • Zhang, T., van Heuven, W. J., & Conklin, K. (2011). Fast automatic translation and morphological decomposition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 22, 1237-1242.
    • Zhou, S., Zhou, W., & Chen, X. (2004). Spatiotemporal analysis of ERP during Chinese idiom comprehension. Brain Topography, 17, 27-37.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article