Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating

It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of psycholinguistic research 2019-12, Vol.48 (6), p.1285-1310
Main Author: Michl, Diana
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Comparative Analysis
Compositionality
Figurative Language
Humans
Idioms
Language Processing
Metaphor
Metonymy
Psycholinguistics
Psychology
Reaction Time - physiology
Reading
Reading Processes
Reading Rate
Second Language Learning
Semantics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13
container_end_page 1310
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1285
container_title Journal of psycholinguistic research
container_volume 48
creator Michl, Diana
description It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this applies to idioms. Two self-paced reading experiments test whether metonymic, metaphoric, or literal idioms have a greater processing advantage over non-idiomatic control sentences, and whether this is caused by varying nonliteralness. Both studies find that metonymic and literal idioms are read significantly faster than controls, while the advantage for metaphoric idioms is only tenuous. Only experiment 2 finds literal idioms to be read fastest of all. As compositionality of the idioms cannot account for these findings, some effect of nonliteralness is suggested, together with idiomaticity and the sentential context.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10936-019-09658-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2265770108</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1232664</ericid><sourcerecordid>2263798042</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhDyCBLHHh0MDYTuy4t2rV0kUFpFLOljeelJTEDna2Vf49ZlOKxIGT_fy-mbH9CHnJ4B0DUO8TAy1kAUwXoGVVF-oRWbFKiUJWVfWYrAA0FFJDdUCepXQDWdc1e0oOBBOlrHW9IrdfR0Q30084BT8P8xG9il3zY39gx-8hHtFNjNjjrfUTXYdhDKmbuuBt303zMT0Pd_Rz8FlgtL3HlOhJ22IzJbpxXRgS7Ty9ROs6f02td_TSTnn7nDxpbZ_wxf16SL6dnV6tz4uLLx8265OLohFaTQUHBm0pRdlIZFZVwJ2orGNaqdqCkKV1yoLcOmANt23dOECunLZbV2bFxCF5u_QdY_i5wzSZoUsN9r31GHbJcC4rpfKUOqNv_kFvwi7md-4poXQNJc8UX6gmhpQitmaM3WDjbBiY36mYJRWTUzH7VIzKRa_vW--2A7qHkj8xZODVAmD-_Af79CPjgktZZl8sfsqev8b4927_GfsLTgCh2Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2263798042</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Springer Nature</source><source>Linguistics Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><source>Education Collection</source><creator>Michl, Diana</creator><creatorcontrib>Michl, Diana</creatorcontrib><description>It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this applies to idioms. Two self-paced reading experiments test whether metonymic, metaphoric, or literal idioms have a greater processing advantage over non-idiomatic control sentences, and whether this is caused by varying nonliteralness. Both studies find that metonymic and literal idioms are read significantly faster than controls, while the advantage for metaphoric idioms is only tenuous. Only experiment 2 finds literal idioms to be read fastest of all. As compositionality of the idioms cannot account for these findings, some effect of nonliteralness is suggested, together with idiomaticity and the sentential context.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-6905</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-6555</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10936-019-09658-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31346898</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognitive Psychology ; Comparative Analysis ; Compositionality ; Figurative Language ; Humans ; Idioms ; Language Processing ; Metaphor ; Metonymy ; Psycholinguistics ; Psychology ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Reading ; Reading Processes ; Reading Rate ; Second Language Learning ; Semantics</subject><ispartof>Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2019-12, Vol.48 (6), p.1285-1310</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>Journal of Psycholinguistic Research is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8315-0930</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2263798042/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2263798042?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12830,21357,21361,21373,27901,27902,31246,33588,33589,33854,33855,33888,33889,43709,43856,43872,73964,74140,74156</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1232664$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31346898$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Michl, Diana</creatorcontrib><title>Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating</title><title>Journal of psycholinguistic research</title><addtitle>J Psycholinguist Res</addtitle><addtitle>J Psycholinguist Res</addtitle><description>It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this applies to idioms. Two self-paced reading experiments test whether metonymic, metaphoric, or literal idioms have a greater processing advantage over non-idiomatic control sentences, and whether this is caused by varying nonliteralness. Both studies find that metonymic and literal idioms are read significantly faster than controls, while the advantage for metaphoric idioms is only tenuous. Only experiment 2 finds literal idioms to be read fastest of all. As compositionality of the idioms cannot account for these findings, some effect of nonliteralness is suggested, together with idiomaticity and the sentential context.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Compositionality</subject><subject>Figurative Language</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Idioms</subject><subject>Language Processing</subject><subject>Metaphor</subject><subject>Metonymy</subject><subject>Psycholinguistics</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Reading Rate</subject><subject>Second Language Learning</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><issn>0090-6905</issn><issn>1573-6555</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>CPGLG</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhDyCBLHHh0MDYTuy4t2rV0kUFpFLOljeelJTEDna2Vf49ZlOKxIGT_fy-mbH9CHnJ4B0DUO8TAy1kAUwXoGVVF-oRWbFKiUJWVfWYrAA0FFJDdUCepXQDWdc1e0oOBBOlrHW9IrdfR0Q30084BT8P8xG9il3zY39gx-8hHtFNjNjjrfUTXYdhDKmbuuBt303zMT0Pd_Rz8FlgtL3HlOhJ22IzJbpxXRgS7Ty9ROs6f02td_TSTnn7nDxpbZ_wxf16SL6dnV6tz4uLLx8265OLohFaTQUHBm0pRdlIZFZVwJ2orGNaqdqCkKV1yoLcOmANt23dOECunLZbV2bFxCF5u_QdY_i5wzSZoUsN9r31GHbJcC4rpfKUOqNv_kFvwi7md-4poXQNJc8UX6gmhpQitmaM3WDjbBiY36mYJRWTUzH7VIzKRa_vW--2A7qHkj8xZODVAmD-_Af79CPjgktZZl8sfsqev8b4927_GfsLTgCh2Q</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Michl, Diana</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8315-0930</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating</title><author>Michl, Diana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Compositionality</topic><topic>Figurative Language</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Idioms</topic><topic>Language Processing</topic><topic>Metaphor</topic><topic>Metonymy</topic><topic>Psycholinguistics</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Reading Rate</topic><topic>Second Language Learning</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Michl, Diana</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of psycholinguistic research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Michl, Diana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1232664</ericid><atitle>Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating</atitle><jtitle>Journal of psycholinguistic research</jtitle><stitle>J Psycholinguist Res</stitle><addtitle>J Psycholinguist Res</addtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1285</spage><epage>1310</epage><pages>1285-1310</pages><issn>0090-6905</issn><eissn>1573-6555</eissn><abstract>It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this applies to idioms. Two self-paced reading experiments test whether metonymic, metaphoric, or literal idioms have a greater processing advantage over non-idiomatic control sentences, and whether this is caused by varying nonliteralness. Both studies find that metonymic and literal idioms are read significantly faster than controls, while the advantage for metaphoric idioms is only tenuous. Only experiment 2 finds literal idioms to be read fastest of all. As compositionality of the idioms cannot account for these findings, some effect of nonliteralness is suggested, together with idiomaticity and the sentential context.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>31346898</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10936-019-09658-7</doi><tpages>26</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8315-0930</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-6905
ispartof Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2019-12, Vol.48 (6), p.1285-1310
issn 0090-6905
1573-6555
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2265770108
source Social Science Premium Collection; Springer Nature; Linguistics Collection; ERIC; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); Education Collection
subjects Adult
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Comparative Analysis
Compositionality
Figurative Language
Humans
Idioms
Language Processing
Metaphor
Metonymy
Psycholinguistics
Psychology
Reaction Time - physiology
Reading
Reading Processes
Reading Rate
Second Language Learning
Semantics
title Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T21%3A57%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Speedy%20Metonymy,%20Tricky%20Metaphor,%20Irrelevant%20Compositionality:%20How%20Nonliteralness%20Affects%20Idioms%20in%20Reading%20and%20Rating&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20psycholinguistic%20research&rft.au=Michl,%20Diana&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1285&rft.epage=1310&rft.pages=1285-1310&rft.issn=0090-6905&rft.eissn=1573-6555&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10936-019-09658-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2263798042%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-2010f4634c6e1a7502d35ad19778a0364ad7a06bd01c2af8cd0e27d9abd4f8c13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2263798042&rft_id=info:pmid/31346898&rft_ericid=EJ1232664&rfr_iscdi=true