LUND UNIVERSITY

PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00

Comparing L1 and L2 phraseological processing

free combinations, collocations and idiomsGyllstad, Henrik

2016

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Gyllstad, H. (2016). Comparing L1 and L2 phraseological processing: free combinations, collocations andidioms. Poster session presented at AAAL 2016, Orlando, Florida, United States.

Total number of authors:1

General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

In the literature on the processing of

multi-word units, idioms are a well-

researched area. For less semantically

opaque word combinations, however,

there is to date relatively little work

done. This study aims to fill this gap by

investigating how both L1 and L2

speakers of English process three

phraseological types: ‘collocations’, ‘free

combinations’ and ‘idioms’. The study

draws on a descriptive theoretical

approach to word combinations called

the Continuum Model (Howarth, 1998).

In this model, combinations vary in

semantic transparency, from the most

transparent category – ‘free

combinations’ – through an intermediate

type – ‘collocations’ – to the least

transparent categories – ‘figurative

idioms’ and ‘pure idioms’, respectively.

Figure 1. A phraseological continuum model (Howarth, 1998).

Henrik Gyllstad | Centre for Languages and Literature | Lund University | henrik.gyllstad@englund.lu.se

Participants

All participants were students of English at

university level (NNS in Sweden, NS in the

UK).

Procedure

A Semantic Judgement Task was used in

which participants were asked whether each

presented word combination was

“meaningful and natural” to them in English

(see Figure 2). The experiment was

administered in a lab setting using DMDX

software.

klklk

Gyllstad, H. & Wolter, B. (2016). Collocational processing in

the light of a phraseological continuum model: Does

semantic transparency matter? Language Learning, 66(2).

Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language

proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24–44.

Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms

recognized fast? Memory and Cognition, 37, 529–540.

Introduction Methods and Materials (con’d) Results Discussion

References

write a letter

########

1. Eye fixation (250 ms)

2. Blank screen (65 ms)

3. Item displayed (0-4000 ms) Fixed effect Estimate SE t p

Intercept (BL) 7.401 0.043 171.223 < .001***

Free combination -0.368 0.048 -7.648 < .001***

Collocation -0.224 0.049 -4.571 < .001***

Idiom -0.245 0.047 -5.114 < .001***

Group -0.226 0.051 -4.385 < .001***

Phrase length 0.025 0.106 2.346 .021*

Verb occurrence 0.016 0.005 2.933 .003**

Free combination: Group 0.113 0.046 0.394 .694

Collocation: Group 0.018 0.044 2.525 .013*

Idiom: Group 0.030 0.043 0.690 .492

Free Combi-nations

Restricted Collocations

Figurative Idioms

Pure Idioms

pay a bill

pay a visit

pay the price

pay the piper

This research was supported by a project grant (2012-906) from the

Swedish Research Council

Figure 2. The item trial presentation sequence.

Conference in Orlando, FL, USA, 9-12 April 2016

Group N Age Sex Self-rated proficiency in English*

AoA of English**

English Vocabulary size***

M/F S L R W

NS 30 22.3 4/26 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (4.6)

NNS 21 22.8 10/11 7.2 8.1 7.4 6.6 6.7 7968 (3.8) (1.5) (1.1) (1.1) (1.5) (1.8) (1613)

Methods and Materials

Items Verb + noun combinations were created for four critical conditions, controlling for word and phrase frequency, length, and cognates: 16 free combinations FC (write a letter) 16 collocations CO (pay a visit) 16 idioms ID (bury the hatchet) 48 baseline items BL (feed a stone)

After the experiment, participants were

asked to rate their familiarity with the items.

Reaction time (RT) and error rate (ER) were

analysed using linear mixed effects models

in the lme4 package in R, and a backwards

stepwise procedure was used to eliminate

variables that did not contribute to the fit of

the respective model.

Table 1. Participant information Main contrasts: t p NS FC – CO 1.32 .190 NS FC – ID -1.08 .283 NS CO – ID 0.23 .817 NNS FC-CO 2.75 .007** NNS FC-ID 2.34 .021** NNS CO-ID 0.40 .694

-NS faster than NNS for all types. -For both groups, all types different from Baseline. Covariates: Phrase length 2.35 .021* Phrase familiarity 2.87 .004** No interactions for Phrase familiarity x Group or Phrase familiarity x Group x Type .

For native speakers (NS), there were no

significant differences for how they

processed free combinations, collocations

and idioms. No idiom superiority effect was

observed, but all types were familiar

phrases, matched for frequency, and the

decontextualized presentation mode, with

no bias for a figurative reading of idioms,

may decrease potential differences.

Familiarity was a strong predictor of

processing time (cf. Tabossi, Fanari & Wolf

(2009).

Significant differences were found for how

L2 learners (NNS) processed free combi-

nations in comparison with collocations and

idioms (RTs and ERs), but no significant

difference between collocations and idioms.

-> Partial replication of results in Gyllstad

& Wolter (2016)

-> FCs were slightly better known

-> More compositional analysis mode?

Overall, the results only lend partial support

to the typology of word combinations in the

descriptive phraseological continuum

model. The distinction is more pronounced

for non-native speakers than for native

speakers.

N Mean age (SD)

M/F Mean AoA (SD)

Mean vocabulary Size

NNS of English (L1 Swedish)

21 22.8 (3.8) 10/11

6.7 (1.8) 7968 (1613)

NS of English 30 22.3 (4.6) 4/26 n.a. n.a.