10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Figuring Out How Verb-Particle Constructions Are Understood During L1 and L2 Reading

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this paper was to investigate first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading of verb particle constructions (VPCs) among English–French bilingual adults. VPCs, or phrasal verbs, are highly common collocations of a verb paired with a particle, such as eat up or chew out, that often convey a figurative meaning. VPCs vary in form ( eat up the candy vs. eat the candy up ) and in other factors, such as the semantic contribution of the constituent words to the overall meaning (semantic transparency) and frequency. Much like classic forms of idioms, VPCs are difficult for L2 users. Here, we present two experiments that use eye-tracking to discover factors that influence the ease with which VPCs are processed by bilingual readers. In Experiment 1, we compared L1 reading of adjacent vs. split VPCs, and then explored whether the general pattern was driven by item-level factors. L1 readers did not generally find adjacent VPCs ( eat up the candy) easier to process than split VPCs ( eat the candy up); however, VPCs low in co-occurrence strength (i.e., low semantic transparency) and high in frequency were easiest to process in the adjacent form during first pass reading. In Experiment 2, we compared L2 reading of adjacent vs. split VPCs, and then explored whether the general pattern varied with item-level or participant-level factors. L2 readers generally allotted more second pass reading time to split vs. adjacent forms, and there was some evidence that this pattern was greater for L2 English readers who had less English experience. In contrast with L1 reading, there was no influence of item differences on L2 reading behavior. These data suggest that L1 readers may have lexicalized VPC representations that are directly retrieved during comprehension, whereas L2 readers are more likely to compositionally process VPCs given their more general preference for adjacent particles, as demonstrated by longer second pass reading time for all split items.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Seeing a phrase "time and again" matters: the role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences.

            Are speakers sensitive to the frequency with which phrases occur in language? The authors report an eye-tracking study that investigates this by examining the processing of multiword sequences that differ in phrasal frequency by native and proficient nonnative English speakers. Participants read sentences containing 3-word binomial phrases (bride and groom) and their reversed forms (groom and bride), which are identical in syntax and meaning but that differ in phrasal frequency. Mixed-effects modeling revealed that native speakers and nonnative speakers, across a range of proficiencies, are sensitive to the frequency with which phrases occur in English. Results also indicate that native speakers and higher proficiency nonnatives are sensitive to whether a phrase occurs in a particular configuration (binomial vs. reversed) in English, highlighting the contribution of entrenchment of a particular phrase in memory.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Metaphor comprehension: a computational theory.

              W Kintsch (2000)
              Metaphor comprehension involves an interaction between the meaning of the topic and the vehicle terms of the metaphor. Meaning is represented by vectors in a high-dimensional semantic space. Predication modifies the topic vector by merging it with selected features of the vehicle vector. The resulting metaphor vector can be evaluated by comparing it with known landmarks in the semantic space. Thus, metaphorical prediction is treated in the present model in exactly the same way as literal predication. Some experimental results concerning metaphor comprehension are simulated within this framework, such as the nonreversibility of metaphors, priming of metaphors with literal statements, and priming of literal statements with metaphors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                31 July 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 1733
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychology, McGill University , Montreal, QC, Canada
                [2] 2School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University , Montreal, QC, Canada
                [3] 3Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick , Fredericton, NB, Canada
                [4] 4Faculty of Education, Applied Psychology, University of Western Ontario , London, ON, Canada
                [5] 5Department of Psychology, Brain & Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario , London, ON, Canada
                Author notes

                Edited by: Matthew W. Crocker, Saarland University, Germany

                Reviewed by: Katharina Spalek, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany; Clare Patterson, University of Cologne, Germany

                *Correspondence: Mehrgol Tiv, mehrgol.tiv@ 123456mail.mcgill.ca

                This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01733
                6684791
                d3023b33-04b2-422f-9d45-7631562d9670
                Copyright © 2019 Tiv, Gonnerman, Whitford, Friesen, Jared and Titone.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 13 December 2018
                : 12 July 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 72, Pages: 18, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 10.13039/501100000155
                Funded by: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 10.13039/501100000038
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                bilingualism,verb particle constructions,phrasal verbs,reading,eye tracking

                Comments

                Comment on this article