Idiomatic Mastery in a First and Second Language

Monica Karlsson

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781788922388
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Psycholinguistik

The comprehension, retention and production of idiomatic expressions is one of the most difficult areas of the lexicon for second language (L2) learners, even very advanced students, to master. This book investigates this under-researched and interesting aspect of language acquisition, shedding light on both conventional uses of idiomatic expressions as well as creative variant forms. The chapters in the book delve into different aspects of idiomatic mastery: students' comprehension of canonically used idioms in both their first and second language; the effects of multimedia and visualization techniques on learners' comprehension and retention of L2 idioms; students' misinterpretations of L2 idioms; L2 learners' comprehension of creative idiom variants and their use of idioms in free composition writing.

1Introduction

1.1 Idiomatic Expressions

The term ‘idiom’ is often used as an umbrella term for a wide variety of different kinds of multi-word sequences, such as phrasal and prepositional verbs, prefabricated patterns, sayings and proverbs (Liu, 2008; Moon, 1998). There are also what Moon (1997) categorizes as classical idioms, exemplified by bite off more than I can chew, have an axe to grind, kick the bucket, rain cats and dogs and spill the beans. It is these latter kinds of idioms that are the focus of the present study.

Irrespective of type, as evidenced in the research literature, idiomatic expressions form one of the most difficult areas of the lexicon for second language learners (Bagheri & Fazel, 2010; Cacciari & Tabossi, 1993; Fotovatnia & Khaki, 2012; Kövecses, 2010; Lewis, 2009; Noroozi & Salehi, 2013). This holds true even for very advanced students (Ellis, 2009; Prodromou, 2007), and it concerns comprehension as well as retention and, in particular, productive knowledge. The major reason for this is most likely idioms’ double layer of semanticity (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993). An additional reason may be that a vast number of idiom uses occur in their non-conventional form (Moon, 2009; Szczepaniak, 2006). These facts may also explain why many instructors tend to neglect teaching figurative language in a structured way (Danesi, 1991; Lazar, 1996; Mäntylä, 2012; Mohamadi Asl, 2013; Wray & Fitzpatrick, 2008), despite the fact that curricula often mention multi-word sequences as one important part of vocabulary teaching. In the Swedish national curriculum for years 7–9 (ages 13–15), for instance, it is stated that ‘[l]anguage phenomena such as […] words with different registers, as well as fixed language expressions’ should be taught (Skolverket, 2011: 34). Within the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR), the importance of knowledge of figurative language is also recognized and regarded as a ‘significant component of the linguistic aspect of sociocultural competence’ (CEFR, 120). Here an understanding of idiomatic usage is expected from level B2 and up. One explanation as to why idioms are neglected in the L2 classroom may be that, while there are quite a few self-study books on the subject matter, there are still comparatively few EFL text books that include idiomatic expressions in a systematic way (Vasiljevic, 2015).

Avoiding learning and teaching idioms does not, however, appear to be an option (Bagheri & Fazel, 2010; Lazar, 1996; Mohamadi Asl, 2013; Szczepaniak, 2006), as, contrary to what many people seem to believe, these items are highly prolific in a wide variety of genres of spoken as well as written text (Baleghizadeh & Bagheri, 2012; Boers, 2000; Brenner, 2003; Irujo, 1986; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Examples are casual conversation, newspapers, movies, sitcoms, soap operas, cartoons, radio broadcasts, political debates, comic strips, horoscopes, etc. (Cignoni & Coffey, 2000; Fotovatnia & Khaki, 2012; Liu, 2008; Moon, 1997, 1998; Pollio et al., 1977). In fact, the extent to which these types of multi-word units are used would, if completely avoided, make it excessively more difficult to function effectively in an L2 setting (Bagheri & Fazel, 2010; Fotovatnia & Khaki, 2012; Gibbs, 1980; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Secord & Wiig, 1993). A total lack of these expressions, or even only an underuse, also makes L2 speakers sound unnatural and formal (Cooper, 1999), as familiarity with a great number of multi-word sequences and the ability to use them correctly are important features of nativelike command in any language (Bagheri & Fazel, 2010; Baleghizadeh & Bagheri, 2012; Cowie & Mackin, 1975; Mohamadi & Asl, 2013; Wray, 2000). Some researchers therefore believe that the true measure of nativelike mastery of a second language is having achieved a solid ability to metaphorize (Danesi, 1991). An increased knowledge of idiomatic expressions also entails gaining a deeper understanding of the history of the language and of the culture and customs of the people speaking it. This may in turn act as a motivator in the L2 classroom (Bagheri & Fazel, 2010; Dong, 2004).

Formulaic language is also often considered to form an important link between vocabulary and grammar (Ghanavati Nasab & Hesabi, 2014; Lennon, 1998). Accordingly, owing to the individual words of which they are made up, multi-word sequences keep poking and pushing syntax, and syntax keep poking and pushing back because of restrictions as to, for example, what variations are acceptable before a sentence becomes erroneous (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2013; Bell, 2009; Szczepaniak, 2006). In a constant tug-of-war, these aspects of a learner’s linguistic progression further appear to develop at approximately the same pace. This interdependent relationship tallies with brain research which has been able to show that larger areas of the brain are activated when items of high imageability are processed than is the case with, for instance, function words (Pulvermüller, 2003). It also agrees with linguistic research which has found that a solid understanding of figurative language has positive effects on all aspects of proficiency (Garcia Moreno, 2011; Secord & Wiig, 1993; Szczepaniak, 2006; Tabatabaei & Gahroei, 2011). These facts indicate that many neurological links are made when the meaning of multi-word sequences are processed. It may also mean that a solid command of idiomatic expressions does not only enhance learners’ lexical understanding, but their syntactical knowledge too.

1.2 The Purpose and Outline of the Book

As suggested in the previous section, this book delves into the world of figurative language. More precisely, it aims to investigate aspects of comparatively advanced learners’ comprehension, retention and production of idiomatic expressions in a first (Swedish) and second (English) language, canonical forms as well as distorted forms referred to as creative variants.

The book begins by focusing on students’ comprehension of canonically used idioms, making quantitative and qualitative comparisons between learners’ mother tongue and their second language. Students from six educational levels (ages between 13 and 18) are here included. In addition to age, the effects of three other well-known facilitators – ­context, transparency and frequency – are simultaneously investigated by subjecting the participants to two parallel tests, one in Swedish and one in English, each consisting of 27 test items. Furthermore, the idioms tested are not only provided with contextual support of varying degrees, but also display different levels of compositionality1 and commonality. The proficiency levels of the groups, as depicted by their teachers, are also incorporated in the equation. In the light of theoretical approaches as well as the results of empirical investigations, as presented in the theoretical section, the students’ achievements on the two tests are then contrasted and discussed.

Based on the results of Chapter 2, the third chapter explores the effects of contextual support even further. More specifically, the chapter aims to determine whether multimedia and visualization techniques may enhance comparatively advanced learners’ knowledge of L2 idioms to a greater extent than written context as a single modality. Again, canonically used idioms are in focus.

In the first of two experiments, learners are supplied with captioned audio-visual input, whereas in the second experiment three different student groups are presented with (a) still pictures, (b) etymological elaboration and (c) still pictures + etymological elaboration respectively. In both experiments, the results of these informant groups are then compared to the results of groups provided with the idioms in short written contexts. In this case, the two experiments focus not only, as in the previous chapter, on learners’ comprehension, but also investigate treatment effects on retention. Moreover, the experiments draw on the theories of Dual Coding and Levels of Processing, which hypothesize that input pertaining to meaning provided in two modalities concurrently will enhance learning more so than structural or phonetic information in a single modality. Research and criteria relevant to each experimental type, as presented in the theoretical section, will also be considered in connection with the results.

While a great many studies point to figurative language being an error-prone area, there are very few that explore incorrect answers in more detail. For this reason, Chapter 4 revisits the students’ replies in Chapter 3, focusing on non-answers and (partial) misinterpretations. Based on comprehensive accounts of the L1/L2 mental lexicon, drawing on compositional as well as connectionist approaches, and the L1/L2 lexical interlanguage, including concepts such as blends, fossilization, avoidance and attrition, as well as individual learner characteristics, the five error types found – ‘incorrect answer’, ‘underspecified answer’, ‘overspecified answer’, ‘literal answer’ and ‘test-induced answer’ – are analyzed and discussed. Non-answers are also considered, and are, together with ‘incorrect answer’ and ‘underspecified answer’, related to the idioms’ transparency and frequency.

While in Chapters 2–4 the focus is on canonically used idioms, Chapter 5 moves on to non-canonical uses. More precisely, the investigation included here is dedicated to learners’ understanding of L2 creative variants, which is a largely unexplored area within second language acquisition (SLA). The informants, a group of Swedish 17-year-olds, and their achievements are here judged along a creativity continuum, ranging from systemic variants, i.e. non-creative variants, to those variants that bear hardly any resemblance to their canonical form. The effects of the students’ grades for English as whole, as predicted by their teacher, are also related to their level of mastery.

In the final investigation of the book, we turn our eyes on learners’ production of L2 idioms. For this study, the students involved in the two experiments discussed in Chapter 3 were asked to compose a fictional essay, incorporating ten of the idioms for which they had received treatment, i.e. the sixth chapter focuses on learners’ ability to produce idiomatic expressions in free composition writing. This is, similar to L2 comprehension of creative variants, largely unexplored territory, and further considered by most linguists to be one of the most difficult aspects to master.

The students’ erroneous uses are here seen to fall into five main categories.

(1)Category A: errors with meaning/context.

(2)Category B: errors with lexical set-up and form.

(3)Category C: syntactical errors induced by the idioms.

(4)Category D: errors not directly induced by the idioms, but part of the idioms’ make-up.

(5)Category E: multiple errors, involving two or more of the error types in A, B, C and/or D.

The errors made are partly discussed in relation to the only other comprehensive study found on the subject matter, as well as, where relevant, analyzed in relation to the L2 mental lexicon as depicted in Chapter 4.

Moreover, to explore what may help promote learners’ idiom use, the students’ compositions are investigated in the light of a number of facilitators, not only those well-known to help in the disambiguation process – transparency, frequency and familiarity – but also those that in the research literature are thought to be especially relevant to production – syntactic fixedness and grammatical structure.

In the final chapter, the results are summed up and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Note

(1)In this book, the two terms (non-)compositionality and (non-)transparency will, except when explicitly stated otherwise, be used interchangeably to refer to the ease or non-ease with which learners disambiguate idiomatic meaning based on an expression’s constituents. However, a distinction is sometimes made. This can be illustrated with the help of the idioms break the ice and spill the beans. While the former is compositional, break meaning swift changing and ice meaning uncomfortable social situation, as well as transparent, the latter is also compositional, spilling meaning unintentional revealing and beans m...