Bilingual and Monolingual Idiom Processing Is Cut from the Same Cloth: The Role of the L1 in Literal and Figurative Meaning Activation.
The present study examines non-native (L2) and native (L1) listeners' access to figurative idiomatic meaning and literal constituent meaning in two cross-modal priming experiments. Proficient German learners of English (L2) and native speakers of American English (L1) responded to English target words preceded by English idioms embedded in non-biasing prime sentences in a lexical decision task. English idioms differed in levels of translatability: Lexical level idioms had word-for-word translation equivalents in German, while post-lexical level idioms had matching idiomatic concepts in German but could not be translated word for word. Target words either related to the figurative meaning of the idiom or related to the literal meaning of the final constituent word of the idiom (e.g., to pull someone's leg, literal target: walk, figurative target: joke). Both L1 and L2 listeners showed facilitatory priming for literally- and figuratively-related target words compared to unrelated control target words, with only marginal differences between the listener groups. No effect of translatability was found; that is, the existence of word-for-word translation equivalents in German neither facilitated nor hindered meaning activation for German L2 listeners. The results are interpreted in the context of L1 and L2 models of idiom processing as well as further relevant translation studies.
SFB 833, University of Tübingen Tübingen, Germany.
Sara D
SD
Beck
Psycholinguistics and Applied Language Studies, English Department and SFB 833, University of Tübingen Tübingen, Germany.
Andrea
A
Weber
L2 listening; cross-modal priming; figurative language; idioms; translation
Mem Cognit. 1973 Sep;1(3):343-6
24214567
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):977-90
19897807
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Oct;30(5):889-906
15462627
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
24403724
Mem Cognit. 1989 Jul;17(4):454-62
2761403
Mem Cognit. 2009 Jun;37(4):529-40
19460959
Mem Cognit. 1980 Mar;8(2):149-56
7382816
Mem Cognit. 1997 Jan;25(1):57-71
9046870
Mem Cognit. 1990 Mar;18(2):153-63
2319957
Cogn Psychol. 1989 Jan;21(1):100-38
2465866
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Mar;48(1):91-111
25821142
Biling (Camb Engl). 2010 Jul 1;13(3):373-381
20676387
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Sep;20(5):1126-38
7931098
J Cogn Neurosci. 2013 May;25(5):762-76
23249356
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Sep;27(5):1223-37
11550750
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):402-7
15641430
Mem Cognit. 2008 Sep;36(6):1103-21
18927029