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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Beate Abel 341The norm-idioms were extracted in order to form the basis for adirect comparison between native and nonnative judgements.Merging the data from Studies 1 and 2 was justified because of thegreat similarities between the two nonnative populations. Both thenative and the nonnative group were large enough (56 and 169participants respectively) to be compared (Titone and Connine,1994: 255).The following data refer to the 171 norm-idioms. As far as thedichotomous judgement decomposable–nondecomposable isconcerned, the native and the nonnative group show opposingtendencies: Whereas native speakers tend to judge idioms asnondecomposable (41.9% decomposable, 58.1% nondecomposable;Titone and Connine, 1994: 259), nonnative speakers tend to decomposeidioms (52.6% decomposable, 47.4% nondecomposable).This tendency is strengthened under the 75% agreement criterion:Nonnatives judge 26.3% of idioms (45) as decomposable and 20.5%(35) as nondecomposable. 53.2% (91) are uncategorizable under the75% agreement criterion. Native speakers judge 15.2% of idioms(26) as decomposable and 35.7% (61) as nondecomposable; 49.1%(84) are uncategorizable under the 75% agreement criterion(Titone and Connine, 1994: 259).The comparison between native and nonnative speakers showsthat the former tend to judge idioms as nondecomposable, whereasthe latter tend to decompose them. In both groups, speakers agreein their judgements on only about half of the idioms. Summarizing,it can be stated that natives and nonnatives show similarjudgements as far as the overall distribution is concerned – underthe 75% criterion both groups agree about only half of the idioms– whereas with regard to the decomposable–nondecomposableclassification their judgements differ. The DIR Model interprets thedifferences in terms of different lexical representations in the L1and L2 lexicon.As far as familiarity and its relationship to decomposability underthe 75% agreement criterion is concerned, the native and nonnativegroup show the same tendency in their judgements. However, thefamiliarity ratings given by the native participants are fairly close,whereas the nonnative ratings show a large range. Recall thatfamiliarity was measured on a 7-point scale. Point 7 indicatedhighest familiarity, point 1 the lowest. In the native speaker group,the mean values were 5.92 for the 26 decomposable idioms and 5.76for the 61 nondecomposable idioms. This means that decomposableidioms are rated as being more familiar. The mean values in thenonnative group were 4.9 (45 decomposable idioms) and 2.99 (35nondecomposable idioms). This shows that in both groupsDownloaded from http://slr.sagepub.com at Shanghai Jiaotong University on March 7, 2009
342 English idioms in the L1 and L2 lexicondecomposability goes together with higher familiarity. The DIRModel argues that there is a difference between frequency andfamiliarity and that high familiarity hints at a close relationship toconceptual structure (compare second and third assumptions).IV The central assumptions of the DIR ModelFirst, it should be noted that the DIR Model is a general modelthat is compatible with various, more concrete hypotheses, forexample the graded salience hypothesis (Giora, 1997; 1999; Gioraand Fein, 1999).The model is a heuristic representational approach,whereas the hypotheses discussed at the beginning of this articleare processing hypotheses. It is a fundamental question whetherthere is a difference between representation and processing.Usually the two terms are regarded as synonymous, because themanner of representation directly influences processing. However,if one takes a closer look, assumptions about the mentalrepresentation of language should be located at an even moreabstract and ‘higher’ level than those about processing. 4 The DIRModel postulates two levels of representation: a lexical and aconceptual one. 5 The first two assumptions discussed below dealwith lexical representations only and the third assumption refers tothe conceptual level. The fourth assumption deals with differencesbetween the L1 and the L2 lexicon. The central question withregard to lexical representation is: Are idioms represented (andaccessed) via the lexical entries of the individual constituents thatform each idiom or are there separate lexical entries specifying theidiomatic meaning? The former are called constituent entries, thelatter idiom entries.1 Idiom entries and constituent entriesFirst assumption: An idiom’s decomposability status determines itsmanner of representation. Nondecomposable, i.e., noncomposi-4Another basic question concerns the relationship between conscious judgements of speakersabout language data and unconscious knowledge in the form of mental representations. It iscommon in linguistics to assume that unconscious knowledge (competence) underlies thesejudgements (performance) and to infer one from the other.5In this very broad sense, the usage of the term dual is in accordance with approaches likePaivio’s dual coding theory (Paivio, 1971; 1986) rather than with Jackendoff’s (1989) externaland internal concepts. Jackendoff assumes the conceptual level to be a subpart of thelinguistic level, whereas Paivio separates the verbal from the nonverbal system. Apart fromthat, Paivio’s approach is much more comprehensive than the DIR Model, which restrictsitself to idioms.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 13: 340 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?