On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions

Abstract The present paper reviews linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on idiom representation and models of idiom processing. Two approaches in defining idiom representation and processing characteristics are compared. According to the ‘noncompositional approach’, idioms are represented and processed similar to long words. In contrast, the ‘compositional approach’ emphasizes the semantic contribution of an idiom's component word meanings in interpretation. We argue that neither approach alone adequately captures the existing body of data on idiom processing, and propose a model of idiom representation and processing that ascribes noncompositional and compositional characteristics to idiomatic expressions. In this view, idiomatic expressions function simultaneously as semantically arbitrary word sequences and compositional phrases. Consistent with this hybrid model, the results of an eye tracking study are presented in which reading rates differ as a function of the inherent decomposability of idioms.

[1]  Cristina Cacciari,et al.  The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. , 1993 .

[2]  D. Lancker,et al.  Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients , 1987, Brain and Language.

[3]  D. G. MacKay,et al.  Metaphor and Thought , 1980 .

[4]  Arnold L. Glass,et al.  The comprehension of idioms , 1983 .

[5]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  H. Gardner,et al.  The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. , 1977, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  George Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things , 1987 .

[8]  C. Tompkins,et al.  The access and processing of familiar idioms by brain-damaged and normally aging adults. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  R. Gibbs.  Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Craig W. Linebaugh,et al.  Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions by Right-Hemisphere-Damaged Adults , 1981 .

[11]  B. Abbott,et al.  The Psychology of Word Meanings. , 1992 .

[12]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[13]  Wendy A. Schweigert,et al.  Familiar idiom comprehension , 1988 .

[14]  Samuel A. Bobrow,et al.  On catching on to idiomatic expressions , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Deletion And Logical Form , 1976 .

[16]  M. Gernsbacher.  Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Cristina Cacciari,et al.  Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. , 1994 .

[18]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  P. Tabossi,et al.  The comprehension of idioms. , 1988 .

[20]  Raymond W. Gibbs.  Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation∗ , 1986 .

[21]  Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. , 1993 .

[22]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The access and processing of idiomatic expressions , 1979 .

[23]  Christine Chiarello,et al.  Right Hemisphere Contributions to Lexical Semantics , 1988 .

[24]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning , 1990, Cognition.

[25]  Sam Glucksberg,et al.  Beyond Literal Meanings: The Psychology of Allusion , 1991 .

[26]  N. Foldi,et al.  Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients , 1987, Brain and Language.

[27]  C M Connine,et al.  Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: effects of predictability and literality. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Cristina Cacciari,et al.  Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation , 1993 .

[29]  W. Schweigert.  The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms , 1986 .

[30]  Cynthia M. Connine,et al.  Descriptive Norms for 171 Idiomatic Expressions: Familiarity, Compositionality, Predictability, and Literality , 1994 .

[31]  G. Nunberg.  The pragmatics of reference , 1978 .

[32]  H. Gardner,et al.  The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks , 1990, Brain and Language.

[33]  Wendy A. Schweigert,et al.  The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage , 1992, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[34]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing , 1989 .

[35]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and representations , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[36]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[37]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: A double dissociation? , 1984, Brain and Language.

[38]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[39]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  William Hirst,et al.  Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology , 1984, Brain and Language.

[41]  M. Beeman.  Semantic Processing in the Right Hemisphere May Contribute to Drawing Inferences from Discourse , 1993, Brain and Language.

[42]  R. Gibbs.  What do idioms really mean , 1992 .

[43]  Erik-Jan van der Linden,et al.  Incremental Processing and the Hierarchical Lexicon , 1992, Comput. Linguistics.

[44]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms: Some Effects of Context on Comprehension. Technical Report No. 93. , 1978 .