English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: a ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Beate Abel 339voluntary nearly 80% of the participants fulfilled it. Apart fromvery few exceptions, the meaning paraphrases the participants gavewere correct, which indicated the reliability of the participants’judgements: if they rated an idiom with 7, they really knew what itmeant.Half of the participants who rated decomposability wererandomly assigned to an experimental condition which allowedthem to look up the German translation of the idiom’s constituents,in order to make sure that decomposability and not knowledge ofvocabulary was at stake. This condition showed that constituents ofnondecomposable idioms were more often checked for theirGerman translation than words of decomposable idioms. Probablyparticipants wanted to make sure that their nondecomposablejudgement was not due to ignorance of the constituents’ meanings.Furthermore it showed that participants did not confuse lack ofknowledge of vocabulary and nondecomposability (for details, seeAbel, 2003). In the present context, the factor translation is of norelevance. The analysis supported the hypothesis that a nonnativesample is as reliable as a native sample (see also Chaudron, 1983;Sorace, 1990; 1996).After completing the idiom judgements, all the participants filledin a biographical questionnaire, which was designed to gatherindividual information that might influence the participants’decomposability-rating behaviour, e.g., L2 proficiency, knowledge ofother foreign languages, language awareness or how often they readEnglish texts. Participation in Study 1 took roughly sixty minutes;participants assigned to Study 2 needed 75 minutes on average.3 Results: decomposabilityThe initial, dichotomous decomposability-rating task yielded thefollowing results: 3 In Study 1, the participants judged a meanproportion of 56.5% to be decomposable and 43.5% to benondecomposable. In Study 2, the mean proportions were 55.2%and 44.8%, respectively. Recall that natives rated 41.9% asdecomposable and 58.1% as nondecomposable (Titone andConnine, 1994). This demonstrates that nonnatives show an overall3From a statistical point of view, due to the simple yes–no answers that are commonly usedin this kind of judgement task it is not possible to give more than percentages as results.Because especially Study 2 was a replication of the study conducted by Titone and Connine(1994) with a native sample, the dichotomous decision was retained. However, as the overallresults indicate, future research should use 5-point scales in order to get a more detailedpicture of the range between a yes or no decision. This does not mean that there is no needto identify the linguistic and psychological variables that influence each decision.Downloaded from http://slr.sagepub.com at Shanghai Jiaotong University on March 7, 2009
340 English idioms in the L1 and L2 lexicontendency to judge idioms as being decomposable rather thannondecomposable, independently of the syntactic structure of theidioms.The 75% agreement criterion was used in native speaker studies(e.g., Gibbs and Nayak, 1989; Titone and Connine, 1994) to get aclearer picture of the distribution. The criterion identifies idiomsthat according to 75% of the participants belong to one class or theother. Using the 75% agreement criterion, in Study 1 33.2% (or 63idioms) were rated as decomposable and 15.3 % (29) asnondecomposable. In Study 2, 29.2% (38) were rated as decomposableand 17.7% (23) as nondecomposable. In bothstudies, about half of the idioms (Study 1: 51.5%, 98, Study 2: 53.1%,69) could not be classified according to the 75% criterion. As theinitial decomposability-rating task already indicated, nonnativestend to judge idioms as being decomposable rather thannondecomposable.Note that the lack of more clear-cut results is not due to thenonnative sample, but is rather characteristic of the task in question,as the results of the native participants discussed in the nextparagraph show. In general – i.e., in showing an asymmetricaldivision – the nonnative results support the findings reported byTitone and Connine (1994) rather than those reported by Gibbsand Nayak (1989). However, the nonnative judgements are a mirrorimage of the native judgements.The analysis of the biographical questionnaire identifiedfrequency of reading English texts and the type of text as the factorsthat influenced the participants’ decomposability-rating behaviourmost. Recall that in Study 1 the initial dichotomous decomposability-ratingtask for all nonnative participants yielded a meanproportion of 56.5% of idioms as decomposable. German speakersof English who read literary English texts daily (23 participants)only judged 49.8% of idioms to be decomposable. That means thattheir judgements are closer to those that native speakers display(41.9%; Titone and Connine, 1994; see below). This hints at a kindof frequency effect that might lead to specific lexical representations(for a discussion of familiarity, see next paragraph).4 Comparison of native and nonnative judgements: norm-idiomsTitone and Connine (1994) reported descriptive norms for 171idiomatic expressions, e.g., judgements on (de)composability andfamiliarity given by native speakers of English. These 171 idioms(referred to as ‘norm-idioms’), form a subset of the 320 idioms thatwere judged in Studies 1 and 2 by nonnative speakers of English.Downloaded from http://slr.sagepub.com at Shanghai Jiaotong University on March 7, 2009
Page 1 and 2: Second Language Researchhttp://slr.
Page 3 and 4: 330 English idioms in the L1 and L2
Page 11: 338 English idioms in the L1 and L2
Page 31: 358 English idioms in the L1 and L2

English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: a ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?