Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 | [email protected]
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.