Bilingual Figurative Language Processing

Chapter
Part of the The Bilingual Mind and Brain Book Series book series (BMBBS)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the research in bilingual figurative language processing. It starts with reviewing different types of figurative language and the importance it has for revealing the mechanisms underlying language processing in general. As research into how bilinguals process figurative language is largely an extension of the research questions explored in the monolingual literature, the chapter next discusses models developed to account for how native language (L1) speakers store and process figurative language. The chapter then summarizes the still limited studies into L2 (nonnative) and bilingual figurative processing and identifies major research themes that have been explored through off-line and online behavioral, electrophysiological, and eye-tracking studies which looked at how nonnative language users acquire, store, and retrieve different figurative tropes.

Keywords

Figurative language Formulaic language Metaphor Idioms Second language Bilingual processing Metaphorical competence 

References

  1. Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anaki, D., Faust, M., & Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 36(7), 691–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological measures. NeuroImage, 36, 222–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & DiRusso, F. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from context: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bertinetto, P. M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin, 86, 203–216. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.07.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition, 1, 342–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bock, K., & Brewer, W. F. (1980). Comprehension and memory of the literal and figurative meaning of proverbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies, 8, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: More than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Bortfeld, H. (2003). Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 217–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bortfeld, H. (2017). Is Figurative Language the Final Frontier or a Pit Stop Along the Way?: Bilingual Figurative Language Processing by Roberto R. Heredia and Anna B. Cieślicka.The American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 254–258.Google Scholar
  15. Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., et al. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117(6), 1241–1253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boulenger, V., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). When do you grasp the idea? MEG evidence for instantaneous idiom understanding. NeuroImage, 59, 3502–3513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brannon L. L. (1975). On the understanding of idiomatic expressions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  18. Bromberek-Dyzman, K. (2015). Irony processing in L1 and L2: Same or different? In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 268–297). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bromberek-Dyzman, K., Rataj, K., & Dylak, J. (2010). Mentalizing in the second language: Is irony online inferencing any different in L1 and L2? In I. Witczak-Plisiecka (Ed.), Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics:Vol. 1. Speech actions in theory and applied studies (pp. 197–216). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  20. Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Michelow, D., & Gardner, H. (1984). Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: A double dissociation? Brain and Language, 22(2), 253–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., & Gardner, H. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 28(4), 375–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cacciari, C., & Corradini, P. (2015). Literal analysis and idiom retrieval in ambiguous idioms processing: A reading-time study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(7), 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 217–240). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014). Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7(5), 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2015). Cross language lexical priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eyetracking suggests that this idea ‘has legs’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000103
  28. Carrol, G., Conklin, K., & Gyllstad, H. (2016). Found in translation: The influence of L1 on the processing of idioms in L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. doi: 10.1017/S0272263115000492
  29. Champagne, M., Virbel, J., Nespoulous, J.-L., & Joanette, Y. (2003). Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects. Brain and Cognition, 53, 152–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23, 104–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e62. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cieślicka, A. (2006a). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cieślicka, A. (2006b). On building castles on the sand, or exploring the issue of transfer in the interpretation and production of L2 fixed expressions. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Cross-linguistic influences in the second language lexicon (pp. 226–245). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  34. Cieślicka, A. (2007). Language experience and fixed expressions: Differences in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings of L1 and L2 idioms. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and Idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, Finland, May 19-20 (pp. 55–70). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Cieślicka, A. (2010). Formulaic language in L2: Storage, retrieval and production of idioms by second language learners. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 149–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 208–244). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language, 116, 136–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2013, May). The multiple determinants of eye movement patterns in bilingual figurative processing. Paper presented at the 25th APS Annual Convention, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Cieślicka, A. B., Heredia, R. R., & Olivares, M. (2014). It’s all in the eyes: How language dominance, salience, and context affect eye movements during idiomatic language processing. In L. Aronin & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism. Studies in honor of David Singleton (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is said from what is meant: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Colombo, L. (1993). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 163–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. doi: 10.1017/S0267190512000074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Cooper, T. C. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research, 1146, 128–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Cronk, B. C., Lima, S. D., & Schweigert, W. A. (1993). Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cronk, B. C., & Schweigert, W. A. (1992). The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 13, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cutter, M. G., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2014). Preview benefit in English spaced compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1778–1786. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition, 25, 57–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Danesi, M. (1986). The role of metaphor in second language pedagogy. Rassegna Italiana Di Linguistica Applicata, 18(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  51. Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language learning: The neglected dimension. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 489–500). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  52. De Grauwe, S., Swain, A., Holcomb, P. J., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 1965–1984.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Deignan, A., Gabryś, D., & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-rasing activities. ELT Journal, 51, 352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Faust, M., Ben-Artzi, E., & Vardi, N. (2012). Semantic processing in native and second language: Evidence from hemispheric differences in fine and coarse semantic coding. Brain and Language, 123, 228–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Faust, M., & Mashal, N. (2007). The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: A divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia, 45, 860–870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1993). The comprehension and semantic interpretation of idioms. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 79–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Fogliata, A., Rizzo, S., Reati, F., Miniussi, C., Oliveri, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The time course of idiom processing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3215–3222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. García, O., Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2015). Figurative language processing and methodological considerations. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 117–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gerrig, R., & Healy, A. (1983). Dual processes in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 667–675.Google Scholar
  63. Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 149–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Gibbs, R. W. (1981). Memory for requests in conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 630–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.Google Scholar
  66. Gibbs, R. W. (1985). On the process of understanding idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(5), 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Gibbs, R. W. (1992). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Gibbs, R. W. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Gibbs, R. W. (1998). The fight over metaphor in thought and language. In A. N. Katz, C. Cacciari, R. W. Gibbs, & M. Turner (Eds.), Figurative language and thought (pp. 88–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Gibbs, R. W., & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Giora, R. (2001). Foreword. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3&4), 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language. Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony, context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999b). Irony interpretation: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor, 12(4), 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999c). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A. (2000). Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Glass, A. L. (1983). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Glucksberg, S. (1989). Metaphors in conversation: How are they understood? Why are they used? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Glucksberg, S. (1991). Beyond literal meanings: The psychology of allusion. Psychological Science, 2(3), 146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  93. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  94. Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings, and models. In A. M. B. DeGroot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 225–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  95. Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Why can't you kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Harris, R. J. (1979). Memory for metaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Harris, R. J., Tebbe, M. R., Leka, G. E., Garcia, R. C., & Erramouspe, R. (1999). Monolingual and bilingual memory for English and Spanish metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2014). Bilingual storage: Compound-coordinate and derivatives. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Foundations of bilingual memory (pp. 11–40). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2016). Metaphoric reference: An eye movement analysis of Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilingual readers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00439 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Heredia, R. R., & Muñoz, M. E. (2015). Metaphoric reference: A real-time analysis. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 89–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Hillert, D., & Swinney, D. (2001). The processing of fixed expressions during sentence comprehension. In A. Cienki, B. J. Luka, & M. B. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 107–121). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  102. Hoffman, R. (1980). Metaphor in science. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 393–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  103. Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Irujo, S. (1986). A piece of cake: Learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, 40, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Irujo, S. (1993). Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–219.Google Scholar
  106. Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(5), 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Foreword. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. VII–VIX). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  109. Jung-Beeman, M. (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 512–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Kasher, A., Batori, G., Soroker, N., Graves, D., & Zaidel, E. (2002). Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language, 80(3), 510–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Kasparian, K. (2013). Hemispheric differences in figurative language processing: Contributions of neuroimaging methods and challenges in reconciling current empirical findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Kathpalia, S., & Heah, L. (2011). Metaphorical competence in ESL student writing. RELC Journal, 42(3), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Katz, A., & Bowes, A. (2016). Embodiment in metaphor and (not?) in bilingual language. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 3–27). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Kecskes, I. (2006). On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research, 22(2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Kecskes, I. (2016). Is the Idiom Principle blocked in bilingual L2 production? In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 28–52). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  116. Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Metaphorical competence in trilingual language production. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 99–120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  117. Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  118. Kemper, S. (1981). Comprehension and the interpretation of proverbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10(2), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Konopka, A., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kövecses, Z., Szelid, V., Nucz, E., Blanco-Carrión, O., Akkök, E. A., & Szabó, R. (2015). Anger metaphors across languages: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 341–367). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Kutas, M., & Delong, K. A. (2008). A sampler of event-related brain potential (ERP) analyses of language processing. Brain Research in Language, 153–186.Google Scholar
  124. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470.Google Scholar
  125. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Event-related potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reasoning based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Lakoff, G. (2009). The neural theory of metaphor. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  133. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Laufer, B. (1989). A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Deceptive transparency. AILA Review, 6, 10–20.Google Scholar
  136. Lazar, G. (1996). Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal, 50, 43–51.Google Scholar
  137. Lee, S. S., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage, 29, 536–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Levin, S. R. (1979). Standard approaches to metaphor and a proposal for literary metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 124–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Liontas, J. I. (2002). Context and idiom understanding in second languages. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, T. Ruthenberg, & M.-L. Poschen (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook: Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (pp. 155–185). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  141. Liontas, J. I. (2015). Straight from the horse’s mouth: Idiomaticity revisited. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 301–340). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35, 459–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Low, G. D. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9, 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2013). It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 993–1011.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. MacArthur, F. (2010). Metaphorical competence in EFL: Where are we and where should we be going? A view from the language classroom. AILA Review, 23(19), 155–173.Google Scholar
  147. Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., & Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Hendler, T. (2005). The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of principle components analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084–2100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100, 115–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Matlock, T., & Heredia, R. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. McPartland-Fairman, P. (1989). The processing of phrasal verbs by native and nonnative speakers of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The City University of New York, NewYork.Google Scholar
  153. Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 13, 221–246.Google Scholar
  154. Moreno, E. M., Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Morgan, J. L. (1979). Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 136–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  156. Nocentini, U., Kahlaoui, K., Roberts, P., Eck, K., Giroux, F., Goulet, P., et al. (2006). Processing of denotative and connotative alternative meaning of words after left- and right-hemispheric lesion. Brain and Language, 99, 100–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  158. Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Oliveri, M., Romero, L., & Papagno, C. (2004). Left but not right temporal involvement in opaque idiom comprehension: A repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 848–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Papagno, C., & Genoni, A. (2004). The role of syntactic competence in idiom comprehension: A study on aphasic patients. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Papagno, C., Tabossi, P., Colombo, M. R., & Zampetti, P. (2004). Idiom comprehension in aphasic patients. Brain and Language, 89, 226–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Paulmann, S., Ghareeb-Ali, Z., & Felser, C. (2015). Neurophysiological markers of phrasal verb processing: Evidence from L1 and L2 speakers. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 245–267). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Peterson, R. R., & Burgess, C. (1993). Syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension: Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic dissociations. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 201–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  166. Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., & Pollio, M. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  167. Pollio, H. R., Fabrizi, M. S., Sills, A., & Smith, M. K. (1984). Need metaphoric comprehension take longer than literal comprehension? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(3), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. J. (2004). Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. J. (2007). Laterality in metaphor processing: Lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imagining for the right hemisphere theory. Brain and Language, 100(2), 142–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Schmidt, G. L., DeBuse, C. J., & Seger, C. A. (2007). Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain and Language, 100, 127–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 1–22). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 173-189.Google Scholar
  173. Schweigert, W. A., & Moates, D. R. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(4), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  175. Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  176. Shinjo, M., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of context in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). On the ‘holistic’ nature of formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and Linuistic Theory. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2014-0016
  178. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eyetracking study of idiom processing by native and nonnative speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. (2011). Seeing a phrase ‘time and again’ matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multi-word sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 37, 776–784.Google Scholar
  180. Snider, N., & Arnon, I. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In S. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language (pp. 127–163). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  181. Söderman, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language learners and native speakers- the phenomenon of shift response type and its relevance for lexical development. In H. Ringbom (Ed.), Near-native proficiency in English (pp. 91–182). Abo: Abo Akademi, English Department.Google Scholar
  182. Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Steinel, M. P., Hulstijn, J. H., & Steinel, W. (2007). Second language idiom learning in a paired-associate paradigm. Effects of direction of testing, idiom imageability, and idiom transparency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(3), 449–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Stringaris, A. K., Medford, N., Giora, R., Giampietro, V. C., Brammer, M. J., & David, A. S. (2006). How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex. NeuroImage, 33, 784–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Stringaris, A. K., Medford, N. C., Giampietro, V., Brammer, M. J., & David, A. S. (2007). Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and nonmeaningful sentences. Brain and Language, 100, 150–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. Tabossi, P., Wolf, K., & Koterle, S. (2009). Idiom syntax: Idiosyncratic or principled? Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). The activation of idiomatic meaning in spoken language comprehension. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 145–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  190. Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1995). The activation of idiomatic meaning. In M. Everaert, E.-J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 273–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  191. Temple, J. G., & Honeck, R. P. (1999). Proverb comprehension: The primacy of literal meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Titone, D., Columbus, G., Whitford, V., Mercier, J., & Libben, M. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 171–207). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1994). Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1126–1138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Titone, D. A., & Libben, M. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 473–496. doi: 10.1075/ml.9.3.05tit Google Scholar
  196. Türker, E. (2016). The role of L1 conceptual and linguistic knowledge and frequency in the acquisition of L2 metaphorical expressions. Second Language Research, 32(1), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Uchiyama, H. T., Saito, D. N., Tanabe, H. C., Harada, T., Seki, A., Ohno, K., et al. (2012). Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm. Cortex, 48, 563–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Vaid, J., López, B. G., & Martinez, F. E. (2015). Linking the figurative to the creative: Bilinguals’ comprehension of metaphors, jokes, and remote associates. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 53–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Vaid, J., & Martinez, F. (2001). Figurative language and thought across languages: What transfers? Poster presented at Third International Symposium on Bilingualism, University of the West of England, Bristol, April 18, 2001.Google Scholar
  201. Van de Voort, M. E. C., & Vonk, W. (1995). You don't die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaert, E.-J. Van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 283–300). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  202. Van Lancker, D., & Kempler, D. (1987). Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language, 32(2), 265–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2003). Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45–57.Google Scholar
  204. Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2004). When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough (Cf. Pinker, 1995, p. 22): Toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 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: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J. (2015). The formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native speakers. Ampersand, 2, 39–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2009). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00583
  209. Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain damaged patients. Brain, 100, 717–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 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. doi: 10.1017/S026719051200013X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Yorio, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Gu, J., & Ji, F. (2013). ERP correlates of compositionality in Chinese idiom comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and CommunicationTexas A&M International UniversityLaredoUSA

Personalised recommendations