Comprehension of idioms is the act of processing and understanding idioms. Idioms are a common type of figure of speech. Based on common linguistic definitions, an idiom is a combination of words that contains a meaning that cannot be understood based on the literal definition of the individual words.Liu, D. (2008). Idioms: Description, comprehension, acquisition, and pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge. An example of an idiom is hit the sack, which means to go to bed. It can be used in a sentence like the following: I'm beat; I'm gonna hit the sack.
Traditionally, idiom comprehension was thought to require a distinct processing mode other than literal language comprehension. Subsequent research suggested that the comprehension of idioms could be explained in the context of general models of comprehension. Contemporary researchers have also posited that different modes of processing are required for distinct types of idioms. Factors, such as idiom familiarity, transparency, and context are found to influence idiom comprehension.
Recent neurolinguistic research has found, using various techniques, several neural substrates that are associated with idiom comprehension, such as the left temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex.
History
Psycholinguistic research in idiom comprehension began in the 1970s. Early research on figurative language typically assumed that comprehending figurative and literal language involved different kinds of processes. The non-compositional models of idiom comprehension were constructed based on this assumption.
Non-compositional models
Non-compositional models in general assume that idioms are stored like long words in memory.Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 79-108. For example, the entire phrase kick the bucket is represented by the meaning to die. The words kick and bucket separately do not contribute to the idiomatic meaning. Since individual words do not matter in an idiomatic expression, they are thought to be processed together as one entity during comprehension. In contrast, processing a literal expression requires the meaning of each word to be derived and then perceived in relation to the other words in the phrase. Non-compositional models include the literal first hypothesis, lexical representation hypothesis, and the direct access hypothesis.
The literal first hypothesis
The literal first hypothesis suggests that an idiom is first processed literally upon encounter.Swinney, D. A., & Culter, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expression. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-534 Idioms are often ambiguous since they may be processed in two ways: literally and idiomatically. For example, kick the bucket can be interpreted as to strike the pail with one’s foot. The literal first hypothesis proposes that, only after an appropriate literal meaning is not found, a mental idiom list is assessed to retrieve the idiomatic meaning. This hypothesis posits that there are separate storage for normal words and idioms, and that literal processing and figurative processing require different modes. Researchers claimed that this hypothesis was supported when people reported that they made an idiomatic interpretation first after they have read a set of idiom-containing sentences, but a literal interpretation first if they have seen a set of literal but ambiguous sentences.
The lexical representation hypothesis
Contrary to the previous model, the lexical representation hypothesis posits that idioms are stored along with normal words in memory.Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognitio, 1, 343-346 Idioms are processed both literally and figuratively simultaneously. However, the figurative meaning (lexical representation) of the idiom is accessed first since the word string is stored and processed as one entry. Literal processing consumes more time since it requires the understanding of each word individually. Research conducted to support this hypothesis found that people recognized grammatical idioms as meaningful expressions more quickly than non-idiomatic but grammatical phrases when they were presented out of context.
The direct access hypothesis
The direct access hypothesis proposes that literal processing does not necessary occur when an idiom is encountered. It is possible that people completely bypass such mode when faced with a highly familiar idiom or have sufficient context to infer an idiomatic interpretation. In these cases, the idiomatic meaning is directly accessed.Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in context. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149-156 This hypothesis is based on the findings that demonstrated that people processed idiomatic sentences quicker than literal ones, and tended to interpret idiomatic expressions figuratively even when they are used in a literal sense.
Criticisms of non-compositional Models
There are several criticisms for the non-compositional models. First, studies demonstrated that idiom expressions are not processed more slowly than literal expression. In fact, it is often the opposite, which is in contrary to the prediction of literal first hypothesis. Second, idioms have been found to be more than just “frozen phrases” or long words. For example, some idioms can be transformed to some extent and still be recognized and understood. For example, spill the beans can be used as “the beans were spilt by Mary”. This is possible because spill the bean can be mapped on the meaning “reveal the secret”, i.e. spill (reveal) and beans (secret). Such idiom shows that the internal structure of the word string matters during comprehension. The meaning of some idioms, like play with fire, can be also inferred from literal interpretation of their components (i.e. to do something dangerous). These findings reveal that idioms are not a homogeneous, distinct group and thus may not involve different processing strategies from those for literal expressions.Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655-1674.
Compositional models
Compositional models assume that idiom comprehension uses normal language processing. When an idiomatic expression is encountered, it is processed incrementally like a normal expression. Components of an idiomatic word string contribute to a figurative meaning in either a literal or metaphorical way. Compositional models include the configurational hypothesis and the conceptual metaphor hypothesis.
The configurational hypothesis
The configurational hypothesis rose in response to the former hypotheses. It was based on a finding that demonstrated that people did not make an idiomatic interpretation once the first part of an idiom is encountered (against the prediction of the direct access hypothesis) or at the end of the idiom (against the prediction of the lexical representation hypothesis). Instead, the configurational hypothesis posits that a sufficient portion of an idiomatic word string must be processed literally before the idiom is identified.Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668-683 The point where most people recognize the string as an idiom is the idiom key. Once the key is encountered, the words in the rest of the string will not be processed literally. The idiom key is the most important part of the idiom. If it is replaced by other words, the idiomatic meaning cannot be activated.
The conceptual metaphor hypothesis
The conceptual metaphor hypothesis proposes that metaphors are fundamental to human thought and they influence the comprehension of many aspects of language, including idioms.Gibbs, R. W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141–154 An example of a conceptual metaphor is “love is a journey”. This metaphor is embedded in the idiom-containing sentences like their marriage is on the rocks and our relationship is at a cross-road. This hypothesis suggests that conceptual metaphors facilitate the understanding of idiomatic expressions. Individual words in the idiom can metaphorically contribute to its figurative meaning. In fact, research demonstrated that conceptual metaphors are activated during idiom comprehension. The words associated with the metaphor (e.g., journey) were more quickly identified as meaningful after the presentation of the idiom.
Criticisms of compositional models
The prediction of the configurational hypothesis was not supported by research findings. Researchers found that even after a word string is recognized as an idiom, its literal meaning is still activated. Another criticism of the compositional models concerns the role of familiarity in idiom comprehension. As discovered by research on non-compositional models, idiomatic expressions are processed faster than non-idiomatic expressions. This is likely due to people’s familiarity of idioms. This suggests that when highly familiar idioms are encountered, people may not need to engage in literal processing or utilize conceptual metaphor to infer their meanings.
Recent models
Research in idiom comprehension continues today. Non-compositional and compositional models both inform contemporary researchers. One of the recent models includes the dual idiom representation model.
The dual idiom representation model
The dual idiom representation model suggests that idiomatic expressions are simultaneously “long words” and compositional phrases. Thus, idiom comprehension involves both direct memory retrieval and normal language processing. Idioms behave noncompositionally to the degree they are familiar. When highly familiar idioms encountered, their idiomatic meanings can be directly activated. In addition, idioms can behave compositionally if they are decomposable. Decomposability of an idiom refers to the extent to which the literal meaning of the individual words in the word string participate in the overall figurative meaning of the idiom. As suggested earlier, the idiom play with fire is decomposable while kick the bucket is nondecomposable. Comprehension is facilitated in a decomposable idiom since there are commonality between the results of its literal analysis and its idiomatic meaning. Research shows that familiarity had the larger effect on the speed of idiom comprehension than decomposability. Decomposability nonetheless facilitates processing the meaningfulness of the idiomatic expression.Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103-1121.
Factors that affect Idiom Comprehension
Many factors have an effect on the comprehension of idioms. They can influence the processing speed and understandability of the idioms. Some of these factors include the familiarity, transparency, and context of use of the idioms.
Familiarity
Idiom familiarity is typically defined as how frequently an idiom is encountered in a language community. Subjective ratings of idiom familiarity are usually obtained from members of the language community. An example of a more familiar English idiom is pain in the neck, while a less familiar idiom is paddle his own canoe. Research demonstrated that familiar idioms are processed quicker and more accurately than unfamiliar ones.Schweigert, W. A. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33-45. As the dual idiom representation model suggests, highly familiar idioms may lead to direct memory retrieval. Processing unfamiliar idioms, on the other hand, requires contextual information and commonsense knowledge.
Transparency