Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 13:3 (2018) ► pp.311–332

Contributions of semantic richness to the processing of idioms

| University of Birmingham
| University of Birmingham
Idiom studies typically consider variables such as familiarity, decomposability and literal plausibility, and the contributions of these to how figurative phrases are processed are well established. In this study we consider the effect of a previously untested variable: semantic richness. Semantic richness refers broadly to the range of semantic information denoted by a lexical item, and reflects features such as imageability, number of senses, semantic neighbourhood, etc. This has generally been restricted to single words and sometimes to metaphors, so here we investigate how some aspects of this measure – specifically those reflecting perceptual characteristics – contribute to the processing of idiomatic expressions. Results show that aspects of semantic richness affect idiom processing in different ways, with some (emotional valence) contributing to faster processing of figuratively related words, and others (those that highlight physical and literal aspects of the idiom) showing an inhibitory effect. We also show that for some of the dimensions of semantic richness considered here, there is a significant correlation between a measure constructed from the ratings of component words, and one gathered from ratings for the phrase as a whole, suggesting a straightforward way to operationalise semantic richness at a multiword level.
Keywords: semantic richness, idioms, cross-modal priming
Article outline
  • Method
    • Materials
    • Procedure
  • Analysis
    • Semantic richness
    • Collection of additional ratings for semantic richness
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.18014.fin
References (56)
References
Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: a dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Azary, H. & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 451, 296–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 531–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of Idiomatic Expressions: Evidence for a New Hybrid View. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S. & Declerq, C. (2011). Kill the Song – Steal the Show: What Does Distinguish Predicative Metaphors From Decomposable Idioms? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(3), 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G., Littlemore, J. & Dowens, M. G. (2018). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 2041, 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citron, F. & Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(1), 2585–2595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citron, F., Cacciari, C., Kucharski, M., Beck, L., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. (2016). When emotions are expressed figuratively: Psycholinguistic and affective norms of 619 idioms for German (PANIG). Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 91–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortese, M. J. & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 384–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronk, B. & Schweigert, W. (1992). The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(2), 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A. & Carreiras, M. (2008). NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), pp. 1072–1077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2018). Visualizing Fit and Lack of Fit in Complex Regression Models with Predictor Effect Plots and Partial Residuals. Journal of Statistical Software, 87(9), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior research methods & instrumentation, 12(4), 395–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, J., & Gibbs, J. R. W. (1999). Why You Can’t Kick the Bucket as You Slowly Die: Verbs in Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. J., Friel, B. M. & Mickelson, N. R. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete- and abstract-tenor metaphors with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(6), 863–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. & Yap, M. J. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono-and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 160–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N. (1992). Psychological studies in metaphor processing: Extensions to the placement of terms in semantic space. Poetics Today, 13(4), 607–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 341, 89–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1999). Swimming against the current: do idioms reflect conceptual structure? J. Pragmat. 311, 1559–1578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kounios, A., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Fleck, J. I., Grondin, R. & McRae, K. (2009). Semantic richness and the activation of concepts in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 12821, 95–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), pp. 473–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103–1121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, R. A. G., & Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Processing idioms with multiple meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16(1), 63–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ojha, A. & Indurkhya, B. (2016). On the role of perceptual features in metaphor comprehension. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and Communication (pp. 147–170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. & Clark, A. J. (1986). The role of topic and vehicle imagery in metaphor comprehension. Communication and Cognition 19(3–4), 367–387.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C. & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of experimental psychology, 76(1p2), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., & Caporali, A. (2007). Testing idiom comprehension in aphasic patients: the effects of task and idiom type. Brain and Language, 100(2), 208–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., & Genoni, A. (2004). The role of syntactic competence in idiom comprehension: a study on aphasic patients. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(5), 371–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., Lucchelli, F., Muggia, S., & Rizzo, S. (2003). Idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: the role of the central executive. Brain, 1261, 2419–2430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P., Hargreaves, I., Siakaluk, P., Bodner, G. & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,(1), 161–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: [URL]
Rassiga, C., Lucchelli, F., Crippa, F., & Papagno, C. (2009). Ambiguous idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(4), 402–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A1, 1339–1362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodd, J. M. (2004). The effect of semantic ambiguity on reading aloud: A twist in the tale. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 440–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, W. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 151, 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). The Muddy Waters of Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J. & Sears, C. R. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106(1), 433–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Rabanus, S., & Rösler, F. (2007). Processing Verbs in German Idioms: Evidence Against the Configuration Hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(3), 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S., Levelt, W., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1994). Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions: Effects of Predictability and Literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1126–1138.Google Scholar
(1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 311, 1655–1674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., & Libben, M. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 473–496.Google Scholar
Toglia, M. P. & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 671, 1176–1190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J. and Terbeek, D. (1981). Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 24(3), 322–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woollams, A. M. (2005). Imageability and ambiguity effects in speeded naming: Convergence and divergence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 878–890.Google Scholar
Xu, X. (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 1622–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M., & Hargreaves, I. S. (2011). Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 181, 742–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Pexman, P., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(72), 1–10.Google Scholar
Yap, M. J. and Seow, C. S. (2014). The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), pp. 526–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Carrol, Gareth & Katrien Segaert
2024. As easy as cake or a piece of pie? Processing idiom variation and the contribution of individual cognitive differences. Memory & Cognition 52:2 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo
Morid, Mahsa & Laura Sabourin
2023. Role of Affective Factors and Concreteness on the Processing of Idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:6 ► pp. 2321 ff. DOI logo
Carrol, Gareth
2021. Psycholinguistic approaches to figuration. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Sandmann, Matthias, Sabine Weiss & Horst Mueller
2021. How Idioms Are Recognized when Individuals Are “Thrown Off the Track”, “Off the Rack” or “Off the Path”: A Decision Time Experiment in Healthy Volunteers. Metaphor and Symbol 36:3 ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Carrol, Gareth & Jeannette Littlemore
2020. Resolving Figurative Expressions During Reading: The Role of Familiarity, Transparency, and Context. Discourse Processes 57:7 ► pp. 609 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.