As clear as day:The Transparency of English

Idiomatic ExpressionsKristina Geeraert

KU LeuvenICLC–14

Background

´ Idioms typically discussed in terms of their compositionality´ Degree to which each individual component of the expression contributes

meaning to the meaning of the whole

WORD1 + WORD2

Background

´ Idioms typically discussed in terms of their compositionality´ Degree to which each individual component of the expression contributes

meaning to the meaning of the whole

WORD1 + WORD2

´ Idioms are non-compositional´ Idiomatic meanings are not the sum of the parts

≠ IDIOM

Background

´ Several classifications to account for differences between idioms´ Semantic Decomposability (Nunberg 1978; Gibbs et al. 1989):

´ Normally decomposable (e.g. pop the question)

´ Abnormally decomposable (e.g. carry a torch)

´ Non-decomposable (e.g. kick the bucket)

´ Mobility (Nunberg et al 1994; Horn 2003):

´ Fixed Idioms (e.g. kick the bucket)

´ Mobile Idioms (e.g. spill the beans)

´ Metaphors (e.g. make headway)

Background

´ Several classifications to account for differences between idioms´ Semantic Decomposability (Nunberg 1978; Gibbs et al. 1989):

´ Normally decomposable (e.g. pop the question)

´ Abnormally decomposable (e.g. carry a torch)

´ Non-decomposable (e.g. kick the bucket)

´ Mobility (Nunberg et al 1994; Horn 2003):

´ Fixed Idioms (e.g. kick the bucket)

´ Mobile Idioms (e.g. spill the beans)

´ Metaphors (e.g. make headway)

´ However, some studies have not found support for these classifications´ Titone & Connine (1994), Tabossi et al. (2008), Schröder (2013)

Background

´ Idiomaticity continuum (cf. Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor 1988; Wulff 2008)

´ Collocational (compositional) to idiomatic (non-compositional)

´ Idioms = type of construction situated along continuum

´ Placement on continuum depends on formal & semantic properties

Background

´ Idiomaticity continuum (cf. Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor 1988; Wulff 2008)

´ Collocational (compositional) to idiomatic (non-compositional)

´ Idioms = type of construction situated along continuum

´ Placement on continuum depends on formal & semantic properties

´ Constructions themselves can contribute meaning´ Metaphors & metonymies that can be active within the idiom

Background

´ Keysar & Bly (1995, 1999) ´ Transparency = degree to which the expression is considered related (i.e. a

motivated relationship) to its figurative meaning

´ They taught half the participants the meaning of archaic idioms, and the other half of the participants the conceptual opposite meaning

´ e.g. the goose hangs high ‘things look good’

‘things look bad’

´ Asked to rate the transparency of the idioms as an ‘uninformed individual’

´ Learned meaning of idioms were rated as being more transparent

Current Study

´ Knowledge of the idiom plays an important role in transparency of idioms

´ Most studies tease apart the component parts for their individual contribution

´ And use a measure of familiarity (i.e. average rating of familiarity)

´ Individual differences (cf. Dąbrowska, 2012, 2015)

´ This study attempts to further investigate which factors contribute to the transparency of an idiomatic expression

Methodology

MATERIALS´ 180 idioms extracted from:

´ Oxford Idiom Dictionary (Ayto 2009)

´ Collins COBUILD Idioms Dictionary (Sinclair 2011)

´ Varying in length & syntax

´ Also extracted definition and example sentence

kick the bucket

‘to die’

I’m waiting for Uncle Harry to kick the bucket.

Methodology

PROCEDURE´ Each idiom was presented along with its definition & example sentence

´ Presented in random order

´ Each trial consisted of two tasks:´ Respond (‘yes’ or ‘no’) to whether they knew the idiom

´ Rate the ‘transparency’ of the idiom

´ How clear or obvious was the expression?

´ Using a VAS scale: continuous graphical rating scale (Funke and Reips 2012)

Methodology

PROCEDURE´ Additional questions asked after rating task:

´ How often they use idioms in general; if they like using idioms

´ Rate 7 grammatically ‘incorrect’ sentences for acceptability (LQs):

1. The only option the school board has is to lay off a large amount of people.

2. Slot machines are thought to be more addicting than table games.

3. The document had to be signed by both Susan and I.4. While cleaning the kitchen, Sally looked up and saw a spider on the roof.5. I thought it could’ve went either way.

6. She could care less what he had to say about it.

7. You have to balance your life, irregardless of what anybody thinks.

Methodology

PARTICIPANTS´ Twenty native speakers of Canadian English

´ First year undergraduate linguistics students from the University of Alberta

´ Reimbursed with course credit

Results

Results

´ Analyzed using linear mixed effects regression models´ RATINGS

´ Subjects & Items as Random Effects

´ by-Subject random slopes for Trial

´ by-Item random slopes w/correlation parameter for Knowledge of Idiom

´ RTs´ Subjects & Items as Random Effects

´ by-Subject random slopes for Trial

Ratings

Ratings

0 2 4 6 8

020

4060

80100

Frequency & Knowledge of Idiom

log Frequency

Tran

spar

ency

Rat

ing

no

Kno

wle

dge

of Id

iom

yes

Ratings

-3 -2 -1 0 1

020

4060

80100

Enjoyment & Knowledge of Idiom

Like Using Idioms (scaled)

Tran

spar

ency

Rat

ing

no

Kno

wle

dge

of Id

iom

yes

Ratings

-2 -1 0 1 2 3

020

4060

80100

Knowledge of Idiom & PC1 on Language Questions

PC1 on LQs (scaled)

Tran

spar

ency

Rat

ing

no

Kno

wle

dge

of Id

iom

yes

Ratings

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3436

3840

4244

46

Length of Idiom

Length (number of words)

Tran

spar

ency

Rat

ing

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

3234

3638

4042

LSA Score: Idiom & Definition

LSA Score

Tran

spar

ency

Rat

ing

RTs

RTs

0 2 4 6 8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

Frequency & Knowledge of Idiom

log Frequency

log

RT

no

Kno

wle

dge

of Id

iom

yes

RTs

-3 -2 -1 0 1

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

Enjoyment & Knowledge of Idiom

Like Using Idioms Rating (scaled)

log

RT

no

Kno

wle

dge

of Id

iom

yes

Discussion

´ Many factors can contribute to the transparency of an idiom´ Both idiom-related & participant related variables

´ Individual differences are in fact at play´ Enjoyment of using idioms

´ Knowledge of the idiom

Discussion

´ Why is knowledge of the idiom so important?!´ Ability to create meaningful connections for the idiom

´ Able to create a story about why it means what it does (cf. Keysar & Bly 1999)

´ Activate current metaphors and metonymies

´ Or by using other resources (e.g. visual scenarios, folk etymologies)

´ Additional connections created for it’s pragmatic usage in context

´ This complex array of meanings & associations difficult to categorize´ A measure of compositionality forces us to sever these connections

´ Transparency may contribute to placement along the idiomaticity continuum

Thank you!

AcknowledgementsJohn Newman

R. Harald Baayen

References

Ayto, J. (Ed.). (2009). From the horse’s mouth: Oxford dictionary of English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars. Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistics

Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3): 219–253.Dąbrowska, E. (2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of

Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 650–668). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.

Language 64(3): 501–538. Funke, F. & Reips, U.-D. (2012). Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales

and not from 5-point scales. Field Methods 24(3): 310–327. Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J. L., & Keppel, M. E. (1989). Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory

& Cognition 17(1): 58–68. Horn, G. M. (2003). Idioms, metaphors, and syntactic mobility. Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 245–273Keysar, B. & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of

Memory and Language 34: 89–109.Keysar, B. & Bly, B. M. (1999). Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure? Journal of Pragmatics 31:

1559–1578. Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language 70(3): 491–538.Schröder, D. (2013). The syntactic flexibility of idioms: A corpus-based approach. Munich, DE: AVM.Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1995, 2002, 2011). Collins COBUILD idioms dictionary. Harper Collins. Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(2): 313–327. Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. (1994). Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability,

and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9(4): 247–270. Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London/New York: Continuum.