Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-r5qjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-29T02:24:52.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FOUND IN TRANSLATION

The Influence of the L1 on the Reading of Idioms in a L2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2016

Gareth Carrol ,
Kathy Conklin  and
Henrik Gyllstad
Gareth Carrol*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Kathy Conklin
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Henrik Gyllstad
Affiliation:
Lund University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gareth Carrol, School of English, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. E-mail: gareth.carrol@nottingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formulaic language represents a challenge to even the most proficient of language learners. Evidence is mixed as to whether native and nonnative speakers process it in a fundamentally different way, whether exposure can lead to more nativelike processing for nonnatives, and how L1 knowledge is used to aid comprehension. In this study we investigated how advanced nonnative speakers process idioms encountered in their L2. We used eye-tracking to see whether a highly proficient group of L1 Swedes showed any evidence of a formulaic processing advantage for English idioms. We also compared translations of Swedish idioms and congruent idioms (items that exist in both languages) to see how L1 knowledge is utilized during online processing. Results support the view that L1 knowledge is automatically used from the earliest stages of processing, regardless of whether sequences are congruent, and that exposure and advanced proficiency can lead to nativelike formulaic processing in the L2.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 403 - 443
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J., Sholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory and Cognition, 24, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arcara, G., Lacaita, G., Mattaloni, E., Passarini, L., Mondini, S., Beninca, P., & Semenza, C. (2012). Is “hit and run” a single word? The processing of irreversible binomials in neglect dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barfield, A., & Gyllstad, H. (Eds.). (2009). Researching collocations in another language—multiple interpretations. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R., Singmann, H., & Dai, B. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.0–7) [Computer software].Google Scholar
Blais, M.-J., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.Google Scholar
Bulut, T., & Çelik-Yazici, I. (2004). Idioms processing in L2: Through rose-colored glasses. The Reading Matrix, 4, 105–116.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.Google Scholar
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014a). Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7, 1–11.Google Scholar
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014b). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 784–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2015, April 20). Cross language priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eye-tracking suggests that this idea “has legs.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000103.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23, 104–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2013). Do nonnative language speakers chew the fat and spill the beans with different brain hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with the divided visual field paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 475–503.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language, 116, 136–150.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., Heredia, R. R., & Olivares, M. (2014). It’s all in the eyes: How language dominance, salience, and context affect eye movements during idiomatic language processing. In Pawlak, M. & Aronin, L. (Eds.), Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism (pp. 21–41). Switzerland: Springer International.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language as-fixed-effect fallacy. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Staub, A. & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Van Gompel, R., Fisher, M., Murray, W., & Hill, R. L. (Eds.), Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, M. G., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2014). Preview benefit in English spaced compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 40, 1778–1786.Google ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. (2004). BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press) [Online resource]. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.Google Scholar
De Groot, A., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2013). Phia: Post-hoc interaction analysis (R package).Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English collocations: Developing tests for use with advanced Swedish learners (Doctoral dissertation). Lund: Lund University. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/599011/file/2172422.pdf Google Scholar
Gyllstad, H. (2012, May 31–June 3). Validating the vocabulary size test—a classical test theory approach. Poster presented at the 9th EALTA conference, Innsbruck, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.ealta.eu.org/conference/2012/posters/Gyllstad.pdf.Google Scholar
Gyllstad, H., & Wolter, B. (2016). Collocational processing in light of a phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter? Language Learning, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargevik, S., & Ljung, M. (1989). Say when och 1.284 andra engelska idiom [Say when and 1,284 other English idioms]. Solna: Esselte studium.Google Scholar
Holsinger, E. (2013). Representing idioms: Syntactic and contextual effects on idiom processing. Language and Speech, 56, 373–394.Google Scholar
Hübinette, L., & Odenstedt, B. (1988). Ord och inga visor—2000 svenska idiom i engelsk översättning [Straight talking—2000 Swedish idioms with English translations]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Inhoff, A. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 612–624.Google Scholar
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language . TESOL Quarterly, 20, 287–304.Google Scholar
Isobe, Y. (2011). Representation and processing of formulaic sequences in L2 mental lexicon: How do Japanese EFL learners process multi-word expressions? JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 38–49.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 133–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2013). Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 392–697). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kecskés, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1986). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 35–48). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2014). lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models (Version 2.0–11) [Computer software].Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in second language: The effect of L1-L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54, 186–196.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.Google Scholar
Liontas, J. (2001). That’s all Greek to me! The comprehension and interpretation of modern Greek phrasal idioms. The Reading Matrix, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., & Heredia, R. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
McGlone, M., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 167–190.Google Scholar
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1988). Vocabulary size as a placement indicator. In Grunwell, P. (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society (pp. 80–87). London: CILT.Google Scholar
Milton, J. (2010). The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels: A common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, and textbooks across Europe. In Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 211–232). Eurosla Monograph Series I. Retrieved from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/EM01tot.pdf Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13.Google Scholar
Paterson, K., Liversedge, S., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of short relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717–737.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Phillips, N. A., Segalowitz, N., O’Brien, I., & Yamasaki, N. (2004). Semantic priming in a first and second language: Evidence from reaction time variability and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 237–262.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (Eds.), On-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 33–50). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 3.1.2) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rommers, J., Dijkstra, T., & Bastiaansen, M. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 762–776.Google Scholar
Schweigert, W. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33–45.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). On the “holistic” nature of formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi:10.1515/cllt-2014-0016 Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.Google Scholar
Smolka, E., Rabanus, S., & Rösler, F. (2007). Processing verbs in German idioms: Evidence against the configuration hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S., Levelt, W., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161–184.Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 523–534.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory and Cognition, 37, 529–540.Google Scholar
Titone, D., Columbus, G., Whitford, V., Mercier, J., & Libben, M. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In Heredia, R. R. & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 171–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ueno, T. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between the development of bilingual semantic organisation and interactive connectivity across languages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Trinity College, Dublin.Google Scholar
Warren, H. (1994). Oxford learner’s dictionary of English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1994). The relationship between word meanings in the first and second language: Evidence for a common, but restricted, semantic code. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 195–220.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Cheung, A. (2011). Using priming to explore early word learning. In Trofimovich, P. & McDonough, K. (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research (pp. 73–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2014). Processing collocations in a second language: A case of first language activation? Applied Psycholinguistics, 1–29.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J., Cristino, F., Leek, C., & Thierry, G. (2013). Non-selective lexical access in bilinguals is spontaneous and independent of input monitoring: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognition, 129, 418–425.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese-English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7646–7651.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity—a usage-based approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeganehjoo, M., & Thai, Y. N. (2012). Lexical access in production of idioms by proficient L2 learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18, 87–104.Google Scholar
Zhang, T., van Heuven, W. J., & Conklin, K. (2011). Fast automatic translation and morphological decomposition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 22, 1237–1242.Google Scholar
Zhang, X. (2013). The I don’t know option in the vocabulary size test. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 790–811.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Carrol supplementary material

Carrol supplementary material 1

Download Carrol supplementary material(File)
File 38.7 KB