Cristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato - The Effect of Semantic Analisability of Idioms

7/26/2019 Cristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato - The Effect of Semantic Analisability of Idioms

1/20

This article was downloaded by: [University of Barcelona]On: 03 January 2012, At: 08:43Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Metaphor and SymbolPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20

The Effect of Semantic Analyzability of

Idioms in Metalinguistic TasksCristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato

Available online: 17 Nov 2009

To cite this article:Cristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato (1998): The Effect of Semantic

Analyzability of Idioms in Metalinguistic Tasks, Metaphor and Symbol, 13:3, 159-177

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1303_1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand,or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1303_1http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20


2/20

METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 13 3), 159-177

Copyright 1998 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

The Effect of Semantic nalyzability of

Idioms in Metalinguistic Tasks

Cristina Cacciari

Universitri di Bologna

Maria

Chiara

Levorato

Universid

di

Padova

Fifth graders and adults abilities to assign an interpretation and explain and motivate

an idiom s m eaning were investigated with idioms characterized by different degrees

of sem antic analyzability . By

semantic ana lyzability,

we mean the extent to which

the meanings of the words forming an idiom contribute to its figurative interpretation.

Forty -five Italian 5th graders and 15 adults participated in this study and were asked

to (a) provide a paraphrase of idiom meanings, (b) explain the reasons m otivating the

meaning of idioms, (c) answer whether a 1st grader (i.e., a 6-year-old child) might

understand the idiom s, and (d) indicate what a 6-year-old can do to understand them.

The results showed that sem antic analyzability indeed affected th ways in which

children and adults explained and motivated an idiom s meaning. Children often

paraphrase an idiom by providing a figurative interpretation that is strictly incorrect

but does not reflect the literal meaning of the idiom string. The results suggest that

children possess a figurative competence based on multiple sources of linguistic

inform ation, among which the semantic transparency of the idiom string indeed plays

a major role.

Th e aim of this study w as to investigate the know ledge and strategies children a nd

adults use to make sense of idioms that vary in their semantic analyzability; that is ,

in the extent to which the meanings of the words forming an idiom contribute to i ts

overall figurative interpretation. More precisely, we investigated the linguistic

knowled ge and m etalinguistic abilities used by both children and ad ults when asked

Requests for reprints should be sent to Cristina Cacciari Dipartimento di Psicologia V id e Berti-

Pichat 5 40127 Bologna Italy. E-mail: [email protected]


3/20

16 C CCI RI ND LEVOR TO

to paraphrase, explain, and motivate the meaning of a specific class of linguistic

expressions-namely, idiomatic expressions varying with respect to the perceived

similarity between the literal and the idiomatic meanings.

How is the interpretation of a sentence assigned? According to standard models

of language comprehension, the meaning of the words is retrieved from semantic

memory and combined according to morphosyntactic rules of the language. Tradi-

tionally, idiomatic expressions have been considered as the exception that confirms

the rule-that is, as long words with semantically empty constituents whose

meaning is directly retrieved from the mental lexicon and not computed afresh, as

it is for literal sentences (e.g., Bobrow & Bell, 1973; Swinney

&

Cutler, 1979).

Recently, a new wave of studies questioned this standard account of idioms and the

comprehension models derived from it (Cacciari& Glucksberg, 1990; Gibbs, 1987,

1991, 1994; Wasow, Sag,

&

Nunberg, 1983). quasi-compositional view has

emerged that primarily concerns idioms with a clear metaphorical origin (e.g.,

spill

the beans, burn the candle at both ends, carry a torch

).

What is the relation between the meaning of a word (e.g., candle, torch, or beans)

when it is part of a literal sentence and when it is, instead, embedded in an idiomatic

expression? For those who consider idioms as semantically empty strings, the

answer is quite straightforward: Phrasal idioms possess a single semantic repre-

sentation unrelated to the meanings of their parts (e.g., Cruse, 1986). Recent

evidence, however, supports an opposite viewpoint: McGlone, Glucksberg, and

Cacciari (1994; Glucksberg, 1993) investigated how people process

variant idi-

oms-that is, new figurative expressions in which one or more constituents of an

original idiom are changed (e.g.,

spilling a single bean, biting off much less

than one could chew ). Their results showed that not only were variant idioms

easily understood but, more relevantly, they were also understood as rapidly as their

literal paraphrases, suggesting that variant idioms are processed in much the same

way as literal expressions. The proposed explanation is that variant idioms, like

literal expressions, require linguistic processing:

The

words that form familiar

idioms, by repeated usage, might come to incorporate at least part of the figurative

meaning they have when embedded in idioms. This extended meaning is preserved

even when such words are used out of an original idiom-for instance, in a variant

idiom.

Of course, not all idioms behave in the same way. For instance, Nunberg (1978;

see also Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1990; Gibbs, Nayak, Bolton,

&

Keppel, 1988)

distinguished among different levels of analyzability-or decomposability--of

idiom meaning: In some of them, figurative meaning is more transparently con-

veyed by word meanings (e.g., skate on thin ice, burn the candle at both ends

)

than in other cases where the relation is fairly opaque (e.g., trip the lightfantastic,

kick the bucke t ).


4/20

The specific role of the information conveyed by the words forming familiar

idioms has also been investigated in a developmental framework (Abkarian, Jones,

West, 1992; Cacciari, 1993; Cacciari Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987, 1991;

Levorato Cacciari, 1995, in press; Nippold & Rudzinski, 1993; Nippold

Taylor, 1995). Gibbs (1987,1991) investigated the comprehension of idioms where

the meanings of the parts contributed independently to their overall figurative

meaning (e.g., put yourfoot down, wait on hand an dfo ot ) and nonanalyzable

idioms (e.g., throw in the sponge, beat around the bush ) in children ranging

from kindergartners to first, third, and fourth graders. Gibbs found that idiom

analyzability accounted for the ease with which children comprehended an idiom.

Younger children understood analyzable idioms better than nonanalyzable idioms.

Older children understood both kinds of idioms equally well in context. Without

context, children provided more accurate interpretationsfor analyzable idioms than

for nonanalyzable idioms. Levorato and Cacciari (in press) investigated the extent

to which children s comprehension of idioms was sensitive to semantic analyzabil-

ity in participants from Grade 1 through Grade 4. The results suggest that to

comprehend idioms, younger children use both contextual information and seman-

tic analyzability of the idiom strings, whereas older children mainly use semantic

analyzability

The role of the semantic analyzability of idioms has been investigated mainly

to test possible effects on children s comprehension of idioms. What has been

relatively ignored (with the important exception of Nippold Rudzinski, 1993;

Nippold Taylor, 1995) is the ability of children to explain and motivate idioms

that differ in terms of semantic analyzability and the development of children s

argumentative structures. Would children be able to capitalize on the resemblance

of literal and figurative meanings and to attribute a rationale whereby an idiom

means what it says? Nippold and Rudzinski presented some evidence in favor of a

role of semantic analyzability using an explanation task. Further support for the

idea that the ability to analyze an idiom is related to the development of figurative

language understanding was provided by Nippold and Taylor, who used an expla-

nation task and a forced-choice ask with idioms varying in terms of familiarity and

semantic transparency with school-age children and adolescents.

Our study extends and goes beyond these developmental studies in that it used

a set of related metalinguistic asks for investigating the argumentative structure of

explanations and motivations for idiom meanings. The children s answers also were

compared with those of a group of adults presented with the same tasks and idioms.

large corpus of evidence already exists suggesting that adults have intuitions

concerning the rationale underlying idiom meaning (Cacciari Glucksberg, 1990;

Gibbs, 1994; Gibbs et al., 1988; Nunberg, 1978) and use such intuitions when

necessary for discourse purposes. Less evidence exists, however, on the reasoning


5/20


strategies people use to explain why an idiom means what it says (Cacciari, 1993;

Gibbs, 1994). When an idiom provides an apt example-such as asalike as two

peas n a pod9 -this can be helpful in comprehension because it provides a clear

example of the kind of situations in which it might be appropriate to use such an

idiomatic expression. At the same time, children should be able to go beyond a

mere restatement of the idiom when asked to explain it. Metalinguistic skills are

needed to go beyond a simple restatement and even more so with less transparent

idioms, where a restatement strategy is less appropriate-if not impossible-and

more elaborate reasoning capacities are required.

To summarize, this study investigated the following two topics: (a) children s

and adults ability to paraphrase, explain, and motivate the meaning of three

different types of idiomatic expressions that differ in terms of semantic analyzabil-

ity and (b) the differences between children s and adults metalinguistic abilities.

We predict that the analyzable idioms should be the easiest to paraphrase, explain,

and motivate for both groups of participants because of the straightforward relation

between the constituent word meanings and the overall figurative interpretation.

METHOD

Participants

Forty-five Italian fifth graders (age range= 10.3 to 11.2, mean age

=

10.1) attending

a primary school in Reggio Emilia, serving middle-class families, and 15 students

from the University of Bologna volunteered to participate in this experiment. An

almost equal number of male and female participants in both age groups were

interviewed.

Materials and Procedure

Three different types of idioms that varied along a continuum of semantic analyz-

ability were used as experimental materials. Because no norming study is available

on the semantic analyzability of Italian idioms for children, we used judgments

obtained in a previous study conducted on Italian adults (Cacciari Glucksberg,

1995). Twelve booklets containing 9 idioms each were prepared and given to an

independent group of 12 participants who were asked to (a) write a paraphrase of

each idiom s meaning; (b) explain the origin of the idiom (if they knew it); and (c)

rate on a 7-point scale the extent to which the literal action or mental state denoted

by the idiom was related to, or similar to, the figurative meaning of the idiom. The


6/20

IDIOM ANALYZABILITY

63

scale ranged from

1

(the literal meaning is dissim ilarfrom the idiomatic meaning)

to 7

(the two meanings are related).

The three types of idioms (listed in the

Appendix toge ther with English word-by-word and meaning translations) include

the following:

1

Quasi-metaphorical idioms. These should

e

the easiest to paraphrase and

exp lain so long as they use the strategy followed by good metaphors-namely, they

call to mind aprototypica l or stereotyp ical nstance of an entire category of people,

events, situations or actions (Glucksberg, 1993, p. 18;e.g., jeeling like a cage d

animal for feeling constrained).

2 Transparent idioms.

These should be easy to understand because they are

characterized by a discernible relation between an idiom 's co mpo nent words and

its stipulated meaning. They are nonetheless less ana lyzable than quasi-metaphori-

cal idiom s, in which the metaph orical ground is explicitly described by the vehicle

(e.g.,

making a hole in the water

for being unsuccessful).

3. Opaque idioms. No apparent relation is perceivable between literal and

idiomatic meanings. Children might understand them as conventional familiar

formu las but be unable to explain them (e.g., breaking the ice ).

W e selected idioms very fam iliar to children . Idiom fam iliarity was tested in a

previous study (Levorato

&

Cacciari, 1992 in which 152 Italian primary school

teachers were presented with

85

comm on Italian idiom s and were asked to rate on

a 5-point scale ranging from (never heard or found)

to

5 (very often heard or

found) the frequency with which children may have experienced each idiom in

conversations, textbooks, or television programs for children. The mean ratings

(and standard deviations) for semantic analyzability and familiarity were then

calculated. (For quasi-metaphorical idioms, sem antic analyzability mean

=5.6 SD

= 0.9, and familiarity mean = 3.5, SD = 0.7. For transparent idioms, semantic

analyzability mean =4.3,SD =0.8,and fam iliarity mean

=

3.1,SD

=

0.9.For opaque

idioms, semantic analyzability mean

=

3.2,

SD

= 1.3, and fam iliarity mean

=

3.3,

SD

=0.7.

Three lists of

10

familiar idioms each, one formed by qu asi-metap horical, one

by transparent, and one by o paque idioms, were used (see the Append ix). For each

child, a questionnaire was prepared that contained one of the three lists with the 10

idioms in a randomized o rder. For each idiom, the child was asked to answer, in

written form, four questions that were reported on the same page with each idiom.

The four questions concerned (a) the paraphrase of the idiom 's meaning ( 'What

does the idiom mean? ); (b) the explanation-that is, the reasons mo tivating the

meaning of the idiom ( 'Why d o people use the idiom?'); (c) a judgment of

understandability concerning a younger child's ability to understand an idiom

( Can a first grader understand the idiom?'); and (d) a metalinguistic judgm ent


7/20

64

C CCI RI ND LEVOR TO

concerning the ways in which a younger child might understand an idiom ( 'What

can a 6-year-old child do in order to understand the idiom?').

Each list and questionnairewas submitted to agroup of 15 children. The children

completed their questionnaires individually while seated in a quiet room of the

school. Each experimental session lasted 20 to 30 min. A questionnaire containing

the entire set of 45 idioms, in a randomized order, was presented individually to

the university students, who were advised that the questionnairewas part of a study

on children's acquisition of figurative language.

The answers given to the four questions by both the children and the adults were

classified independently by three independent judges. Interjudge agreement ranged

from 94% to 98%.

RESULTS

ND

DISCUSSION

Paraphrases

We examine first the answers given by adults and children to the question What

does the idiom mean?'The paraphrases obtained were classified as follows:

1. Idiomatic paraphrase. The participant provided the correct idiomatic mean-

ing.

2 . Literal paraphrase. The participant interpreted the idiom literally (e.g., for

the idiom looking or a needle in a haystack, one answer was looking for a very

small thing in the straw ).

3. Figurative paraphrase. A figurative meaning, different from the conven-

tional idiomatic meaning, was proposed that expressed a plausible interpretation of

the idiom (e.g., for break ing the ice, a child wrote, overcoming something very

unpleasant ; for looking or a needle in a haystack , another suggested, looking

for answers to very difficult questions ; for feeling like a cag ed animal, which

means feeling very uneasy, a child wrote, feeling without feelings ).

ceiling effect emerged for adults, who gave idiomatic paraphrases in 90.6%

of their responses. Such paraphrases represented 60.6% of the children's answers

(vs. 11.3% literal paraphrases), showing once again (cf. Cacciari Levorato, 1989;

Gibbs, 1987, 1991 Levorato Cacciari, 1995) that 11-year-old children already

knew the meaning of many familiar idioms and were able to paraphrase them even

in an out-of-context condition.

An interesting result extending previous evidence was the percentage of figura-

tive paraphrases (28%) given by children. In previous reports, such an answer was

obtained when idioms were presented in rich informative contexts (Cacciari


8/20

IDIOM ANALYZABILITY 1

6

Levorato, 1989; Levorato Cacciari, 1995, in press). In this study, figurative

paraphrases were provided when children perceived that the expression was not

literally meant but did not yet know its conventionalized idiomatic form. Literal

paraphrases represented only 11.3% of the answers the children gave, suggesting

again that processing language on a strictly literal level is almost a peripheral

strategy for most 1-year-old children. The percentages of idiomatic, figurative,

and literal paraphrases according to idiom type and age level (i.e., children vs.

adults) are presented in Table

1

The children's paraphrases, unlike those of the adults, were influenced by idiom

type. log-linear model for the analysis of the association between type of

paraphrase and type of idiom showed the reliability of the type of paraphrase factor,

x2(2,N= 45)= 171.05,

p

.0001, and of the interaction between these two factors,

x2 4,N =

4 5 )

= 17.45,

p

< 002 Idiomatic paraphrases were significantly more

frequent for quasi-metaphorical idioms (72.6%) than for transparent and opaque

idioms (52% and 57.3%, respectively; in the saturated model,

z

=

3.045,

p

.01).

No difference emerged between transparent and opaque idioms.

These results suggest that when the literal referent of the idiom is itself an

instance of the idiomatic meaning, as in quasi-metaphorical idioms (e.g., in being

like two drops o

water

for being very similar ), children were easily able to

paraphrase it idiomatically. Semantic analyzability can be characterized as a

continuum whose end poles are quasi-metaphorical idioms on one side and opaque

idioms on the other, with transparent idioms located in the middle. Hence, the lack

of a significant difference between transparent and opaque idioms is problematic,

suggesting that, developmentally, the difference between transparent and opaque

idioms might not always be so clear-cut. The answers obtained to the following

questions further clarify this point.

The next analysis concerns the answers given by the children and adults to the

question Why does one use the idiom?

TABLE

Percentage of Idiomatic I), Figurative

F),

and Literal L) Paraphrases

According to Idiom Type and Age Level

Idiom Type Age

Level

Quasi-metaphorical Children

Adults

Transparent Children

Adults

Opaque Children

Adults


9/20

66 CACCIARI AND LEVORATO

Explanations

The answers given by children and adults were categorized according to the

following five categories:

1. Properties of the literal referent. Participants mentioned the properties that

typically characterize the person, object, or action depicted in the idiom. For

instance, for

being like two drops of water,

a child wrote that the drops of water

are all alike; another mentioned for being like cat and dog ("being enemies")

that cats and dogs are always enemies; and another wrote for being afraid of one's

own shadow ("'being afraid of everything") that a shadow is harmless.

2. Properties of the idiomatic referent.Participants pointed to the characteristics

that a person (or event) has when he or she is described by using an idiom. This

type of explanation seems to reflect the idea of adirect and perceivable link between

an idiom's meaning and its linguistic realization, reflecting a nominal realism

applied to idiomatic meanings. For instance, for looking or a needle in haystack,

a child wrote, "there are people that complicate things so much and want to look

for something that cannot be found7'; for being like dogs and cats, a child

suggested that it was "because two people hate each other"; for

crying over spilt

milk,

a child pointed out that it is "because one cries after having done something

and not before."

3.

Analogies between the literal referent and the idiomatic referent.Participants

elaborated on the analogy between the action or character described by the words

forming an idiom and its figurative meaning. These answers show a high degree of

elaboration on the relation between the literal and idiomatic meanings of the idiom

string. For

breaking the ice,

one child wrote that "the ice is hard to break and the

more time that passes, the more icy the silence gets"; another pointed out that "if

something wrong happens to you, you break the ice when you get over your

sadness"; for

being at the seventh

sky

( being in seventh heaven

), a child wrote

that it is "because she is so happy that she jumps up to the seventh sky"; another

child pointed out that "everyone knows that the sky is wonderful, so just imagine

if such a thing as a seventh sky existed "

4. Reference to use. Participants reported that idioms are formulaic expressions

commonly used in everyday conversations. For instance, one child wrote that "it's

a way of saying," and another wrote that "it's a proverb."

5. Missing answers.

Participants were unable to give an explanation.

The frequencies of these five types of explanations for children and adults are

shown in Table

2.

The answers given by participants were submitted to a log-linear

model for analysis of the association between type of explanation and type of idiom.

The type of explanation factor yielded significance for the children,

X2 4,N = 45)

= 121.45, p < .0001, as well as the interaction with the type of idiom factor, ~ ( 8 ,


10/20

IDIOM ANALYZABKITY

7

TABLE

Percentage of Different Types of Explanations According to Idiom Type and Age Level

Quasi-

Explanation Type Age Level Metaphorical Transparent Opaque

Literal referent Children 42 0 22 0 15 3

Adults 78 6 20 6 14 0

Idiomatic referent Children 34 0 35 3 41 3

Adults 0 6 11 3 9 3

Analogy Children 12 6 20 0 26 0

Adults 14 6 58 0 48 0

Reference to use Children 11 3 1 3 4 6

Adults 5 3 0 6 2 0

Missing Children 21 3 22 6

Adults 0 6 9 3 26 6

=

45)

=

118.52, p .0001. The saturated model analysis showed that the

explanations based on the properties of the idiomatic referent (z

=

8.34,

p

.01)

were more frequent than expected and were given regardless of the idiom type.

Two types of answers were responsible for this interaction: (a) the properties

of the literal referent answer that was-unsurprisingly-more frequent for quasi-

metaphorical idioms (z

=

4.97,

p

.01), less frequent for opaque idioms, and

intermediate for transparent idioms (z

=

-5.67,

p

.01) and (b) missing answers,

more frequent for transparent and opaque idioms z

=

3.16, p .01, and z

=

3.08,

p

.01, respectively). This result replicated the result obtained in the paraphrases of

transparent and opaque idioms. These two types of idioms obtained almost the same

pattern of results with the exception of the explanations based on the properties

of the literal referent (22% and 15.3% for transparent and opaque idioms, respec-

tively).

Overall, quasi-metaphorical idioms markedly differed from the other two types

of idioms, suggesting that these idioms were indeed the easiest to understand and

explain. It should be noted that they often explicitly mention part of their idiomatic

meaning, making the restatement strategy fairly easy to adopt.

As to the answers given by the adults, a significant effect of the type of answer

factor was obtained, x2(4,

=

15) = 294.02, p .0001, as was a significant

interaction with the type of idiom factor, x2(8,

N

=

15)

=

207.4, p .0001. The

saturated model analysis showed that explanations based on the properties of the

literal referent and on analogies were significantly more frequent than expected

(z

=

8 . 3 1 , ~ .01, and z

=

10.05, p .01, respectively). Unlike what happened with

children, the properties of the idiomatic referent answers were less frequent than

statistically expected (z

=

-2.6,

p

.05). Quasi-metaphorical idioms elicited mostly

the properties of the literal referent explanations (z

=

7.4, p .01), presumably


11/20


because of the straightforward nature of the relation between the expression and its

figurative meaning. Such answers were instead-and

unsurprisingly-negatively

associated with opaque idioms (z= - 5 . 7 , ~ .Ol) that obtained a positive association

with answers such as

I

don't know (z

=

4.01, .01).

A comparison using a log-linear model was performed between children's and

adults' explanations, showing that the two types of answers did, in fact, differ: A

developmental tendency toward an increase in analogies was observed (z = -4.6

for children and z = 4.6 for adults, .01) as well as a decrease in explanations

based on the idiomatic referent (z

=

6.1 for children and z

=

-6.1 for adults,

.01). The adults used more analogies that consisted in identifying the semantic

relation-the figurative similarity-between the literal content of the idiom and

its figurative meaning: Analogies increased when passing from quasi-metaphori-

cal to transparent and opaque idioms. On the other hand, the adults rarely gave

explanations centered on the idiomatic referent (only 7.1% of answers), presum-

ably because the mention of the idiomatic referent does not contain any informa-

tion on why a linguistic community has selected a certain word string to express

a figurative action or state. Such explanations, on the contrary, were preferred by

children. This suggests that the children often acted as if the meaning was

transparent and the significance of a situation or sentence was self-evident,

implicitly assuming a direct and transparent link between form and meaning.

When passing from quasi-metaphorical to transparent and opaque idioms, a

decrease in the explanations based on the literal referent was observed for both

children and adults. Moreover, both groups were unable to explain number of

transparent and opaque idioms: Adults mostly failed with opaque idioms (26.6%)

and children with both transparent and opaque idioms (21.3% and 22.6%, respec-

tively).

Judgment of Understandability

A judgment of understandability was solicited to determine whether children

realized that the semantic analyzability of an idiom can affect comprehensibil-

ity-that is, to test the metalinguistic awareness of fifth graders. Table 3 shows the

percentage of affirmative ( yes ) answers to the question Can a first grader

understand the idiom?'according to idiom type and age level.

Children did not differentiatebetween types of idioms when they judged whether

they were comprehensible by younger children and mostly answered negatively

(55.1%). A log-linear analysis of the association between the factors type of answer

and type of idiom showed the statistical reliability of only the first factor, X 2 ~

45) = 2 4 6 . 3 , ~ .0001, due to the high frequency of the answer No (z = 10.34,

p

.001). The children were unable to appreciate the difference between types of


12/20

IDIOM ANALYZABILITY 69

T BLE

Percentage of ffirmative nswers ccording to Idiom Type and ge Level

Age Level

Quasi Metaphorical Transparent Opaque

Children

38 6

44 0 20 6

Adults 82 0

38 6 25 3

idioms and likely answered on the basis of their negative evaluation of younger

children's cognitive abilities.

In the opinion of the adults, on the contrary, 6-year-old children could understand

quasi-metaphorical idioms (82%) more easily than transparent idioms (38.6%),

which in turn were judged as more comprehensible than opaque idioms (25.3%),

the least understandable of all. In fact, the log-linear model applied to the adults'

answers showed that the reliability of the interaction between the type of answer

and the type of idiom factors, X2(4,N

= 15 =

110.9,

p

.0001, was due to the

preference for the answer Yes for quasi-metaphorical idioms (z

=

5.74,

p

.01)

and No7' for opaque idioms (z

=

2.83,

p

.01). Affirmative and negative answers

did not reliably differ for transparent idioms, which were in an intermediateposition

between quasi-metaphorical and opaque idioms.

These results suggest that whereas the adults were sensitive to the structure of

idioms, the children did not distinguish between the demands made by different

kinds of idioms on 6-year-olds.

The

next question, What can a 6-year-old child

do

to understand the idiom?,

can illustrate more thoroughly the strategies children and adults attribute to a young

child faced with the task of comprehending an idiomatic expression. The aim of

this question was to induce children and adults to state explicitly the interpretive

strategies by which they identify the semantic relation between the linguistic form

of the string and the idiomatic meaning.

Metalinguistic Strategies

The children's and adults' answers were coded using the following categories:

1.

Asking adults.

Participants stated that in order to understand an idiom's

meaning, one should ask adults.

2 .

Observing (o r pe@orming) wha t is literally expressed by the idiom.

Partici-

pants maintained that the observation, or performance in the case of actions, of what

was literally meant by the string was enough to clarify an idiom's figurative

meaning. For instance, for the idiom

drowning in a glass of water

( getting lost


13/20

17

CACCIARI AND LEVORATO

over nothing"), one child wrote that "it is impossible to drown in a glass of water

because a glass is too small, so it means that you are worried for nothing"; for

crying over spilt milk, one child pointed out that "one should spill milk and then

despair"; for

being afraid of one's own shadow,

a child wrote that one should

"put himiherself in front of a lamp and watch hislher shadow"; for being as mute

as afish ("being silent and keeping secrets"), a child wrote that one should "look

at an aquarium and observe the great conversations of fishes "

3 .

Observing (or performing) the idiomatic referent expressed by the idiom.

Participants reported that indicating or recalling to the child situations in which the

idiom was appropriate was a viable way of making him or her understand the idiom.

For instance, for cutting the rope ("escaping"), a child wrote, "He or she should

feel afraid and then escape very quickly"; for being on the clouds ("being

absentminded"), a child pointed out that "you are in the classroom, the teacher is

explaining and you are thinking of something else"; another child suggested, "to

remind him or her that it had happened to him or her too, to think of something else

while someone was asking him or her something"; for costing an eye of the head

("costing a lot of money"), one child wrote that one should "watch a person who

is spending a lot of money.

4 Metalinguistic activities.

The appreciation of or reflection on the meaning of

the words was seen as sufficiently clear to grasp the figurative meaning. For

instance, one child wrote that "one can examine the words very carefully"; another

child pointed out that "one should think about the words."

5. Missing answers. Participants simply said, "I don't know."

Table 4 reports the percentages of answers according to idiom type, for children

and adults, respectively. Even though half of the children (55.1%) judged that a

T BLE

Percentage of Different Types of Metalinguistic Judgments ccording to

Idiom Type and ge Level

Quasi

Judgment Type Age Level Metaphorical Transparent Opaque

Asking Children 28 6 8 6 30 6

Adults 11 6 24 2 25 7

Literal referent Children 49 3 34 6 9 3

Adults 73 5 39 6 22 3

Idiomatic referent Children 11 3 32 6 22 0

Adults 2 0 3 3 3 4

Metalinguistic activity Children 6 0 4 0 14 6

Adults 5 4 4 7 4 0

Missing Children 4 6 20 0 23 3

Adults 7 5 28 2 44 6


14/20

IDIOM N LYZ BILITY 7

young child was unable to understand idioms, they nonetheless listed several ways

in which he or she could grasp idiomatic meaning. The answer I don't know

following a negative judgment was in fact rare (12.9%).The most frequent answers

for children were as follows: Observing what is literally expressed by the idiom7'

(31.1%), Observing the idiomatic referent of the idiom (22%), and Asking

adults7'(22.6%). The reference to metalinguistic activities was the least frequent

(8.2%). A log-linear analysis showed that both the type of answer factor and its

interaction with type of idiom yielded significance, x2(4,N=45)= 68.9, p .0001,

and x2(8,N = 45) = 116.8,p .0001,respectively.

The frequencies of the five types of answers for the three types of idioms

markedly differed. Observing the literal action (49.3%) was given for mostly

quasi-metaphorical idioms (z=6.02, p .01), less for transparent idioms (34.6%),

and the least for opaque idioms (9.3%, = -6.9, p .01). Not surprisingly, and

consistent with the results obtained for the explanations, this answer represented

almost half of the total answers given by children for quasi-metaphorical idioms.

Here, in fact, the literal referent of the idiom is in itself an instance of the idiomatic

meaning and exemplifies the action expressed by it. Children seemed to imply that

if one carefully observes the surrounding world (cats and dogs, two drops of water,

etc.), then one could understand what an idiom typifies. Children who were unable

to indicate this strategy suggested asking adults (28.6%, z = 3.5 1,

p

.01).

The answers associated with transparent idioms showed that these were per-

ceived

as

more semantically transparent than opaque idioms, although much less

so than quasi-metaphorical idioms. Transparent idioms elicited a high percentage

of Observing the idiomatic action answers (32.6%), which were much less

frequent for quasi-metaphorical idioms (11.3%,

z =

3.7, p .01), and a high

percentage of Observing the literal action answers

(34.6%,

z

=

2.51,

p

=

.01).

However, unlike quasi-metaphorical idioms (4.6%), transparent idioms elicited a

percentage of

I

don't know answers (20%, z

=

2.7, p .05) that was also very

close to that of opaque idioms (23.3%,z = 2.57, p .05).Transparent idioms were

perceived as intermediate between quasi-metaphorical idioms, cognitively the

easiest, and opaque idioms, the most difficult.

It should be noted that the answer Observing the idiomatic action can be

interpreted in two ways: It may indicate the perception of a link, if not a direct

mapping, from literal to idiomatic referents for transparent idioms. But it could also

be a way out type of answer when given for opaque idioms, as it reflects a naive

belief that word meanings are self-evident. The presence of such a belief is also

suggested by metalinguisticanswers such as one should reflect on word meanings

that were positively associated with only opaque idioms (z

=

2.86,p .05).

Opaque idioms differed from both quasi-metaphorical and transparent idioms

in that they obtained the highest percentages of Asking adults answers (30.6%)

and I don't know (23.3%) answers. This is not surprising because, by definition,

there is no detectable relation between literal and figurative meaning for opaque


15/20


idioms. The answer Observe the idiomatic action qualitatively differs when given

for opaque (22%), transparent (32.6%), or quasi-metaphorical idioms (1 1.3%). In

fact, children are very unlikely to use this information to infer the meaning of an

opaque idiom, whereas they possibly would for transparent and quasi-metaphorical

idioms.

Let us examine the adults' answers. Surprisingly, they gave a remarkable

percentage of I don't know answers (z = 4.71,

p

.01)-26.8% overall, but

note the 44.6% given for opaque versus the 7.5% for quasi-metaphorical idioms.

It is reasonable to assume that the adults meant something different from the

children. The children's use of this answer (15.6% vs. 26.8% by adults) might

reflect a real lack of knowledge (and, in fact, it was more frequent with

transparent and opaque idioms). The adults, on the contrary, might endorse an

implicit theory about children, according to which children cannot come to

know a figurative meaning that is, by definition, conventionally established.

The most frequent answer for adults was Observing the literal action (45.1%,

z = 12.14,

p

.001),

which-unsurprisingly-was

overwhelmingly used for

quasi-metaphorical idioms (73.5%); a bit less often, but still quite frequently, for

transparent idioms (39.6%); and much less frequently for opaque idioms (22.3%).

The second most frequent answer was Asking adults (20.5%, z = 4.08, p .01),

which was especially used for transparent (24.2%) and opaque idioms (25.7%, z=

4.72, p .01) and much less for quasi-metaphorical idioms (1 1.6%). This answer

can be interpreted in two ways: Either adults had little confidence in the ability of

young children, or they were convinced of the difficulty implied in the acquisition

of figurative expressions. The reliability of the interaction between the two fac-

tors-type of answer and type of idiom-x2(8, N = 15)= 96.55, p .0001, was

primarily due to two answers: Observing the literal action, which was positively

associated with quasi-metaphorical idioms (z = 5.9, p .01) and negatively

associated with opaque idioms (z= -4.63, p .01), and I don't know, which was

negatively associated with quasi-metaphorical idioms z = -4.04, .01) and

positively associated with opaque idioms (z

=

4 . 2 7 , ~ .01).

Observing the idiomatic referent was used much less by adults (z= -6.05, p

.Ol) than by children (2.9% and 22%, respectively). The same difference was also

found in the production of explanations, where adults mentioned the idiomatic

referent much less often than children. It is worth noting that for adults, the

frequency of two answers, Asking adults and I don't know, increased according

to the extent to which idioms were close to the opaqueness end pole (i.e., when one

passed from quasi-metaphorical to transparent and then to opaque idioms). On the

other hand, a decrease in the Observing the literal referent answer was observed

when one got closer to the analyzability end pole, that is, when one passed from

quasi-metaphorical to transparent and then to opaque idioms. This again suggests

that the meanings of the constituent words contribute differently to the overall

figurative meaning.


16/20

IDIOM

ANALYZABILITY

73

GENER L DIS USSION

Let us concentrate first on the children s performance. They proved to be remark-

ably good at paraphrasing idioms

(60.6 ).

If idiomatic paraphrases were consid-

ered together with figurative paraphrases, they were close to the ceiling

(88.6 ),

suggesting that 11-year-old children had already abandoned a literal strategy in

interpreting idioms, even when idioms were presented out of context.

According to the hypothesis we tested, idioms did not form a homogeneous class

of linguistic entities and are located along a continuum whose end poles are

quasi-metaphorical idioms on the one hand and opaque idioms on the other, with

transparent idioms in an intermediate position. From adevelopmental point of view,

this hypothesis did not gain full support. In fact, transparent and opaque idioms did

not obtain a significantly different percentage of idiomatic paraphrases. Idiomatic

paraphrases were instead significantly more frequent for quasi-metaphorical idi-

oms.

The hypothesis did, however, gain some support from the explanations children

gave of the idiom s meaning and from the strategies ndicated for interpreting them.

The explanations focused on the properties of the literal referent were used in an

interesting way that varied according to the idiom type: They were more frequent

for quasi-metaphorical idioms, less so for transparent idioms, and rare for opaque

idioms. Further support to the hypothesis also came from the answers given to the

question concerning what

a

young child could do to interpret an idiom. Reference

to the literal action was indicated much more for quasi-metaphorical idioms than

for transparent idioms, and even less for opaque idioms. If the explanations

elaborated by our participants can provide some hints about the comprehension

strategies, then these results suggest that the three types of idioms do indeed differ.

When asked about younger children s ability to understand idioms, the children

answered negatively. Such an answer mightreflect an implicit heory about younger

children. This is supported by the fact that although children mostly disputed the

idea that younger children could understand idioms, they nonetheless answered the

question concerning how a young child might come to understand an idiom. The

children indicated strategies that varied according to the type of idiom, with a

polarization of quasi-metaphorical idioms on the one hand and transparent and

opaque idioms on the other hand. The children seemed to be aware that when

n

idiom was a clear instance of a more general class of actions, as with many good

metaphorical vehicles (cf. Glucksberg,

1993),

its explanation and possible under-

standing might be straightforwardly derived by restating the referent, a strategy by

definition useless for opaque idioms and unhelpful for transparent idioms, where

what counts is the web of related meanings and connotations that a speaker or reader

can associate with the constituent word meanings.

Let us now examine the adults answers and compare them with those of the

children. Children s and adults answers differed not only with respect to the


17/20


amount of idiomatic paraphrases produced (90.6% for adults vs. 60.6% for children)

but also in the explanations, understandability judgments, and strategies they

proposed. Such differences can be summarized as follows:

1. The adults generally proved to be more sensitive to the semantic analyzability

of idioms.

2. The adults used many more analogies than the children for explaining

idiomatic meanings (40.2% vs. 19.5%, respectively)-a result consistent with

previous evidence that analogies (and particularly those based on a relation between

systems of properties) are cognitively difficult for children and are acquired later

than other figurative expressions (Gentner, 1989).

3. The adults used fewer explanations centered on the idiomatic referent (only

7.1% as opposed to 37% for children).

4. Adults and children shared the same preference for the characteristics of

the literal referent to explain quasi-metaphorical idioms, but the percentage of

choice for the adults was almost twice that of the children (78.6% vs. 42%,

respectively).

5. The adults considered younger children able to understand idioms. The

adult group judged quasi-metaphorical idioms as the clearest, followed by

transparent and then by opaque idioms, but they showed a relative uncertainty

about the strategies younger children might successfully use, as shown by the

high percentages of the answers

I

don't know7' (26.8%) or Asking adults

(20.5%).

6. When asked about possible strategies for younger children's under-

standing of idioms, the adults modulated their answers according to the type of

idiom. They mentioned-as did the children-that quasi-metaphorical idioms

might be understood by focusing on the literal properties of the referent. But as

far as explanations were concerned, the adults relied much less on the idea that

idiomatic meanings are transparently conveyed by the words forming transparent

and opaque idioms.

Quasi-metaphorical idioms were the easiest to paraphrase, explain, and interpret

for both the children and the adults. This is not surprising if one reflects on the

structure of these idioms: An instance of an event or situation is used to describe

new instances of such events or situations. Furthermore, quasi-metaphorical idioms

usually mention, as typical instances of the issue at hand, objects and actions present

in the everyday life of children (dogs, cats, drops of water, etc.), which allows ready

entrance to interpretation. The literal referents are relevant to the idiom's interpre-

tation, and they therefore can be used in providing interpretations, as in pointing

out analogies.


18/20

IDIOM ANA LYZABILITY

75

REFEREN ES

Abkarian, G. G ., Jones, A West, G. (1992). Young children s idiom com prehension: Trying to get

the picture.

Journal ( Speech and Hearing Research,

35 580-587.

Bobrow, S., Bell, S. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions.

Memory Cognition,

1,

343-346.

Cacciari, C. (1993). The place of idiom s in a literal and metaphorical world. In C . Cacciari

P.

Tabossi

(Eds.),

Idioms. Processing, structure and interpretation

(pp. 27-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenc e

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cacciari,C. Glucksberg, S. (1990). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of w ord

meanings. In G.

B.

Simpson (Ed.),

Understanding word and sentence

(pp. 217-240). Am sterdam:

Elsevier.

Cacciari, C., Glucksberg, S. (1995). Understanding idioms: Do visual images reflect figurative

meanings?

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,

7,283-305.

Cacciari, C., Levorato, M. C. (1989). How children understand idioms in discourse.

Journal of Child

Language,

16,387-405.

Cruse,

D.

A. (1986).

Lexical semantics.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gentner, D. (1989). The m echanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou A Ortony (Eds.),

Similarity and analogical reasoning

(pp. 19S241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Gibbs, W . R. (1987). Linguistic factors in children s understanding of idioms.

Journal of Child

Language,

14, 569-586.

Gibbs, W. R. (1991). Semantic analyzability in children s understanding of idiom s.

Journal of Speech

and Hearing Research,

34, 613-620.

Gibbs,

W

R. (1994).

Thep oetics of m ind. Figurative thought, language and understanding.

Cambridge,

England: Cam bridge University Press.

Gibbs, W. R., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J.L., Keppel, M. (1988). Speakers assump tionsabout the lexical

flexibility of idio ms.

Memory Cognition,

17, 58-68.

Glucksberg,

S.

(1993). Idiomm eaning and allusional content. In C. Cacciari P. Tabossi (Eds.),

Idioms.

Processing, structure and interpretation

(pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbau m Associates,

Inc.

Levorato, M.

C.,

Cacciari,

C.

(1992). Children s comprehension and production of idiom s: The role

of contex t and fam iliarity.

Journal of Child Language,

19,415-433.

Levorato, M. C., Cacciari, C. (1995). The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and

production of idioms in children.

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

60,261-283.

Levorato, M. C., Cacciari, C. (in press). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of seman tic

analyzability and co ntext separable?

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.

McGlone, M., Glucksberg, S., Cacciari,

C.

(1994). Semantic productivity and id iom com prehension.

Discourse Processes,

17, 167-190.

Nippold, M. A., Rudzinski, M. (1993). Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanations: A

developm ental study of ch ildren and adolescents.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,

36,

728-737.

Nippold, M. A,, Taylor,

L.

C. (1995). Idiom understanding in youth: Further examination of

familiarity and transparency.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,

38,426-433.

Nunberg, G. (1978).

The pragmatics of reference.

Bloomington: Ind iana Linguistic Club.

Swinney,

D. A,, Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions.

Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

18, 523-534.


19/20

176 CACCIARI AND LEVORATO

Wasow, T., Sag I. Nunberg, G 1983 ). Idioms: An interim report. In

S.

Hattori

K.

Inoue

Eds.),

Proceedings

o

the XIIIth International ong ress of Linguistics @p.

102-105). Tokyo: CIPL.

PPENDIX

The following sections list experimental idioms used in their original Italian form

with word-by-word and meaning translations.

Quasi Metaphorical Idioms

1

Avere paura anche della propria ombra

to be afraid also of one s own

shadow (to be afraid of everything)

2

Essere come due goccie d acqua

to be like two drops of water (to be very

similar)

3. Essere noioso come una mosca to be as annoying as a fly (to be annoying)

4

Essere come cane e gatto to be like dog and cat (to be enemies)

5 Essere muto come un pesce to be as silent as a fish (to be silent and keep

secrets)

6 Essere in un mare di guai to be in a sea of troubles (to be in great trouble)

7. Dormire come un ghiro to sleep like a dormouse (to sleep very soundly)

8. Sentirsi come un animale in gabbia to feel like an animal in a cage (to feel

constrained, limited in one s freedom)

9. Andare indietro come i gamberi to go backward like lobster (to not make

progress)

10 Sentirsi come unpesce fuord acqua to feel like a fish out of water (to feel

uneasy)

Transparent Idioms

1 Costare un occhio della testa to cost an eye of the head (to cost a lot of

money)

2

Piangere sul latte versato to cry over spilled milk

3. Fare un buco nell acqua to make a hole in the water (to be unsuccessful)

4 Cercare un ago in un pagliaio

to look for a needle in a haystack

5.

Essere sulle nuvole to be on the clouds (to be absent-minded)

6. Affogare in un bicchier d acqua to drown oneself in a glass of water (to

get lost over nothing)

7.

Fare ridere ipolli to make the chickens laugh (to be socially unsuccessful)

8 Chiudere bottega to close up shop


20/20

IDIOM N LYZ BILITY

9 Non sapere chepesciprendere to not know which fish to catch (to be very

uncertain)

10. Essere sulle spine to be on the thorns (to be very anxious)

paque Idioms

1. Darsi della arie to give oneself airs (to boast)

2. Prendere per il naso to take someone by the nose (to tease someone)

3. Essere a1 settimo cielo to be at the seventh sky (to be in seventh heaven)

4.

Avere d el sale in zucca to have some salt in the pumpkin (to be intelligent)

5 Rompere il ghiaccio to break the ice

6. Toccare il cielo con un dito to touch the sky with a finger (to be extremely

happy

7

Mangiare la foglia

to eat the leaf (to understand a secret)

8. Essere a1 verde to be in the green (to be broke)

9. Cadere dalle nuvole to fall from the clouds (to be astounded)

10. Tagliare la corda to cut the rope (to escape)

Cristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato - The Effect of Semantic Analisability of Idioms

Documents

Transcript of Cristina Cacciari & Maria Chiari Levorato - The Effect of Semantic Analisability of Idioms