Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T20:15:13.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Nonliteral Language Processing and Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Omar García ,
Anna B. Cieślicka  and
Roberto R. Heredia
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Omar García
Affiliation:
Texas A&M International University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A&M International University
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A&M International University
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter explores the various methodological tasks employed in the study of bilingual figurative language processing. In the first part of the chapter, we discuss classic behavioral reading paradigms such as rapid serial visual presentation, visual and auditory moving windows, and the newly developed reading integration maze task, as well as eye tracking. The second section focuses on the cross-modal lexical priming task (Swinney, 1979). Finally, we provide an overview on what event-related potentials (ERPs) can tell us about how bilinguals process figurative language. Advantages and disadvantages of these experimental techniques, as well as the implications of task demands for bilingual figurative language processing, are also discussed.

Keywords: bilingual figurative language, cross-modal lexical priming, event related potentials, online tasks, reading tasks

A fundamental characteristic of language is that, over time, it evolves and adapts to readily fit different linguistic needs. Figurative language is linguistic evolution at its best because it describes concrete and abstract ideas by moving beyond literal constructs and using nonliteral meanings to reach an effect. Expressions such as kick the bucket or stop bulldozing me reflect this capacity. We laugh (as in puns and jokes), learn and share life experiences or wisdom (as in idioms and proverbs), emphasize certain messages (e.g., irony and hyperbole), and compare our worlds (e.g., similes and metaphors), as figures of speech enhance our communicative effort. How do bilingual or multilingual speakers comprehend figurative expressions? To illustrate, consider the interaction between a Spanish-English bilingual comedian asking another Spanish-English bilingual colleague to go to the grain.

Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Figurative Language Processing , pp. 117 - 168
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolger, P.A., & Zapata, G.C. (2011). Psycholinguistic approaches to language processing in heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 8,1–29.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Frauenfelder, U.H. (Eds). (1996). A guide to spoken word recognition paradigms. [Special issue]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K.I. (2010). Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 347–357.Google Scholar
Katz, A.N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J.M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3, 191–214. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19, 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldhuis, D., & Kurvers, J. (2012). Offline segmentation and online language processing units: The influence of literacy. Written Language and Literacy, 15, 165–184.Google Scholar
Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D.M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altarriba, J., & Soltano, E.G. (1996). Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents. Memory & Cognition, 24, 700–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J.F., Sholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvarez, R.P., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2003). Accessing word meaning in two languages: An event-related brain potential study of beginning bilinguals. Brain and Language, 87, 290–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ardal, S., Donald, M.W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M. (1990). Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007a). Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological measures. NeuroImage, 36, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007b). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In Beeman, M. & Chiarello, C. (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Binder, K.S. &. Morris, R.K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186–1196.Google ScholarPubMed
Blair, D., & Harris, R.J. (1981). A test of interlingual interaction in comprehension by bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 457–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blais, M.J., & Gonnerman, L.M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb-particle constructions by French-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasko, D.G., & Connine, C.M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308.Google ScholarPubMed
Boland, J.E. (2004). Linking eye movements to sentence comprehension in reading and listening. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 51–76). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bolger, P.A., & Zapata, G.C. (2011). Psycholinguistic approaches to language processing in heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 1–29.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H. (2002). What native and non-native speakers’ images for idioms tell us about figurative language. In Heredia, R.R., & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 275–295). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breznitz, Z., Oren, R., & Shaul, S. (2004). Brain activity of regular and dyslexic readers while reading Hebrew as compared to English sentences. Reading and Writing, 17, 707–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberek-Dyzman, K., & Ewert, A. (2010). Figurative competence is better developed in l1 than in L2, or is it? Understanding conversational implicatures in L1 and L2. In Pütz, M., & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 317–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (2004). On the on-line study of language comprehension. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and beyond (pp. 1–14). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B. (2002). Comprehension and interpretation of proverbs in L2. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: An International Review of English Studies, 37, 173–200.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B. (2003). On understanding metaphorical expressions in the bilingual mode. Linguistica Silesiana, 24, 143–68.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22,115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B. (2007). Language experience and fixed expressions: Differences in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings of L1 and L2 idioms. In Nenonen, M., & Niemi, S. (Eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes (pp. 55–70). Joensuu, Finland: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B. (2013). Do nonnative language speakers chew the fat and spill the beans with different brain hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with the divided visual field paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 475–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieślicka, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain & Language, 116, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2013, May). The multiple determinants of eye movement patterns in bilingual figurative processing. Paper presented at the 25th APS Annual Convention, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A.B., Heredia, R.R., & Olivares, M. (2014). The eyes have it: How language dominance, salience, and context affect eye movements during idiomatic language processing. In Aronin, L., & Pawlak, M. (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism. Studies in honor of David Singleton (pp. 21–42). Switzerland, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V.J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In de Groot, A., & Kroll, J.F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 270–300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Curco, C. (2005). On mosquitoes and camels: Some notes on the interpretation of metaphorically transparent popular sayings. In Colston, H., & Katz, A. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural language (pp.283–308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1983). Lexical complexity and sentence processing. In d’Arcais, G. B. F., & Jarvella, R.J. (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 43–79). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Diego Balaguer, R., Toro, J.M., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Bachoud-Levy, A.C. (2007). Different neurophysiological mechanisms underlying word and rule extraction from speech. PLOS One, 2, e1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Grauwe, S., Swain, A., Holcomb, P.J., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G.R. (2010). Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1965–1984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! Surprise?Psychophysiology, 18, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dopkins, S., Morris, R.K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K.E., Paulmann, S., & Kotz, S.A. (2005). Who’s in control? Processing and L1 influence on L2 processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1593–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Coles, M.G.H. (2000). Event related brain potentials: Methods, theory, and application. In Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., & Berntson, G.G. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 53–84). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faust, M.E., & Gernsbacher, A.M. (1996). Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 53, 234–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (1999). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Anes, M.D., & Horine, M.D. (1996). Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Henderson, J.M., Anes, M.D., Weeks, J.P.A., & McFarlane, D.K. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K.I. (2010). Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 347–357.Google Scholar
Forster, K.I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698.Google Scholar
Forster, K.I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K.I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In Kinoshita, S., & Lupker, S.J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 2–20). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., German, E.S., & Foucart, A. (2014). Qualitative differences in native and nonnative semantic processing as revealed by ERPS. In Heredia, R.R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Foundations of bilingual memory (pp. 237–255). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A.D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerard, J.E. (2007). The reading of formulaic sequences in a native and non-native language: An eye movement analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C., Camblin, C.C., & Swaab, T.Y. (2004). On-line measures of conferential processing. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 139–150). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R.J., & Rho, S.H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 323–335.Google Scholar
Green, D.W. (2011). Language control in different contexts: The behavioral ecology of bilingual speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunter, T.C., Friederici, A.D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 556–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R.J., Tebbe, M.R., Leka, G.E., Garcia, R.C., & Erramouspe, R. (1999). Monolingual and bilingual memory for English and Spanish metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harter, M.R., & Aine, C.J. (1984). Brain mechanisms of visual selective attention. In Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D.R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention. (pp. 293–321). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 1090–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heredia, R.R. (1997). Bilingual memory and hierarchical models: A case for language dominance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heredia, R.R. (1998, August). Cross-modal approaches to the investigation of bilingual spoken language comprehension. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.Google Scholar
Heredia, R.R. (2000, May). Bilingual lexical access and code-switching. Paper presented at the Fifth Conference on Applied Linguistics, Universidad de Las Américas-Puebla, Mexico.Google Scholar
Heredia, R.R., Altamira, W.A., Cieślicka, A.B., & García, O. (2012, November). Bilingual lexical access: Interlingual homographs and the grammaticality maze task. Poster presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Heredia, R.R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heredia, R.R., & Blumentritt, L.T. (2002). On-line processing of social stereotypes during spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 49, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heredia, R.R., Athanatou, E., & Tuttle, S. (2004, November). Bilingual figurative processing: Comprehension of idiomatic expressions. Poster presented at the 45th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Heredia, R.R., García, O., & Penecale, M.R. (2007, November). The comprehension of idiomatic expressions by Spanish-English bilinguals. Paper Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heredia, R.R., & Stewart, M.T. (1998, November). Bilingual on-line sentence processing: A moment-to-moment processing approach. Poster presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Heredia, R.R., & Stewart, M.T. (2002). On-line methods in spoken language research. In Heredia, R.R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 7–28). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heredia, R.R., Stewart, M.T., & Cregut, I. (1997, November). Bilingual online sentence processing: Frequency and context effect in code switching. Poster presented at the 38th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L.A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulstijn, J.H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P., & Hurtado, E. (2010). Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters, 471, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irujo, S. (1993). Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 31, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. (1989). Factors related to cross-language transfer and metaphor interpretation in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Woolley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P.J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanwisher, N.G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, A.N., & Ferretti, T.R. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J.W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Neural plasticity in the dynamics of human visual word recognition. Neuroscience Letters, 244, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolk, H.H., Chwilla, D.J., Van Herten, M., & Oor, P.J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotz, S.A. (2001). Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: A comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotz, S.A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language, 109, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotz, S.A., & Elston-Güttler, K.E. (2004). The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2 as revealed by reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G.R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Delong, K.A. (2008). A sampler of event-related brain potential (ERP) analyses of language processing. Brain Research in Language, 153–186.CrossRef
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980a). Event-related potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980b). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Kluender, R. (1991). What is who violating? A reconsideration of linguistic violations in the light of event-related potentials. In Heinze, H.J., Münte, T.F., & Mangun, G.R. (Eds.), Cognitive electrophysiology: Basic and clinical applications (pp. 183–210). Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1-L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leikin, M. (2008). Syntactic processing in two languages by native and bilingual adult readers: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., & Yip, M.C. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y.J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54, 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liontas, J. (2002). Context and idiom understanding in second languages. In Foster-Cohen, S.H., Ruthenberg, T., & Poschen, M.L. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 155–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Little, D.M., Prentice, K.J., Darrow, A.W., & Wingfield, A. (2005). Listening to spoken text: Adult age differences as revealed by self-paced listening. Experimental Aging Research, 31, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In Pütz, M., & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 293–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V. (2008). Bilingual research methods. In Altarriba, J., & Heredia, R.R. (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 13–37). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19, 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., & Heredia, R.R. (2002). Lexical access of phrasal verbs and verb-prepositions by monolinguals and bilinguals. In Heredia, R.R., & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–303). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPartland-Fairman, P. (1989). The processing of phrasal verbs by native and nonnative speakers of English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The City University of New York, NewYork.Google Scholar
Meuter, R. (2009). Neurolinguistic contributions to understanding the bilingual mental lexicon. In Pavlenko, A. (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Meyer, D.E., & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., Van Heuven, W.J.B., & Grainger, J. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation of cross-language effects of orthographic neighborhood. Brain Research, 1246, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, D.C. (1984). An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In Kieras, D.E., & Just, M.A. (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 69–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 15–32). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Moreno, E.M., Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno, E.M., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Laine, M. (2008). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in the study of bilingual language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 477–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J.L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21, 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E.M.M. (1992). Memory for metaphor by nonfluent bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, H.J., Nicol, J.L., Barss, A., Forster, K.I., & Garret, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H.J., Mills, D.L., & Lawson, D.S. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oren, R., & Breznitz, Z. (2005). Reading processes in L1 and L2 among dyslexic as compared to regular bilingual readers: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J., & Swinney, D.A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786–803.Google ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greenwald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and beyond (pp. 271–308). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L.A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paller, K.A., & Kutas, M. (1992). Brain potentials during memory retrieval provide neurophysiological support for the distinction between conscious recollection and priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, S.D., van Hooff, J.C., & Havelka, J. (2010). Language representation and processing in fluent bilinguals: Electrophysiological evidence for asymmetric mapping in bilingual memory. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1426–1437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulmann, S., Elston-Güttler, K.E., Gunter, T.C., & Kotz, S.A. (2006). Is bilingual lexical access influenced by language context?NeuroReport, 17, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, R.R., & Simpson, G.B. (1989). Effect of backward priming on word recognition in single-word and sentence contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1020–1032.Google ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M.J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., & Traxler, M.J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 33–50). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Potter, M.C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. In Kieras, D.E., & Just, M.A. (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 91–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Polich, J., & Donchin, E. (1988). P300 and the word frequency effect. Electroenceph. Clinical Neurophysiology, 70, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proverbio, A.M., Čok, B., & Zani, A. (2002). Electrophysiological measures of language processing in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 994–1017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proverbio, A.M., Leoni, G., & Zani, A. (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qiao, X., Shen, L., & Forster, K.I. (2012). Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J.E., Shapiro, K.L., & Arnell, K.M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S.A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779–790.Google ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Rotte, M., Heinze, H.J., Nosselt, T., & Münte, T.F. (2002). Brain potential and functional MRI evidence for how to handle two languages with one brain. Nature, 415, 1026–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., van Der Lugt, A., Rotte, M., Britti, B., Heinze, H.J., & Münte, T.F. (2005). Second language interferes with word production in fluent bilinguals: Brain potential and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., De Diego Balaguer, R., & Münte, T.F. (2006). Executive control in bilingual language processing. Language Learning, 359, 133–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommers, J. (2010). Semantic expectancy in the comprehension of idiomatic expressions: An ERP study. Nijmegen CNS, 5, 51–75.Google Scholar
Rugg, M. (1990). Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high- and low-frequency words. Memory & Cognition, 18, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rugg, M.D., Cox, C.J.C., Doyle, M.C., & Wells, T. (1995). Event-related potentials and the recollection of low and high frequency words. Neuropsychologia, 33, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, L.D., & Neville, H.J. (2003). An ERP study of continuous speech processing. Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in non-native speakers. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanford, A.J., Sturt, P., Moxey, L., Morrow, L., & Emmott, C. (2004). Production and comprehension measures in assessing plural object formation. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp.151–166). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Saygin, A.P. (2001, March). Processing figurative language in multi-lingual task: Translation, transfer and metaphor. Paper presented in Proceedings of Corpus-Based and Processing Approaches to Figurative Language Workshop, Corpus Linguistics. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Sereno, S.C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582–595.Google ScholarPubMed
Sereno, S.C., Pacht, J.M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D.L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501–518.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Holcomb, P.J., Grainger, J., & Hartsuiker, R.J. (2011). Testing asymmetries in noncognate translation priming: Evidence from RTs and ERPs. Psychophysiology, 48, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, A.I., & Kroll, J.F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekerina, I.A., Fernández, E.M., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöholm, K. (1995). The influence of crosslinguistic, semantic, and input factors on the acquisition of English phrasal verbs: A comparison between Finnish and Swedish learners at an intermediate and advanced level. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Skoufaki, S. (2008). Investigating the source of idiom transparency intuitions. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, M.T., & Heredia, R.R. (2002). Comprehending spoken metaphoric reference: A real-time analysis. Experimental Psychology, 49, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D.A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.A., & Osterhout, L. (1990). Inference generation during auditory language comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabossi, P. (1996). Cross-modal semantic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2005). Spoken idiom recognition: Meaning retrieval andword expectancy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 465–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanenhaus, M.K. (2004). On-line sentence processing: Past, present, and future. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 371–393). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Titone, D.A., & Connine, C.M. (1994). The comprehension of of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1126–1138.Google ScholarPubMed
Titone, D.A., & Connine, C.M. (1999). On the compositional and nonconpositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Prentice, K., & Wingfield, A. (2000). Resource allocation strategy and recall performance during self-paced listening of discourse. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1029–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Wingfield, A., Caplan, D., Waters, G., & Prentice, K. (2001). Memory and encoding of spoken discourse following right hemisphere damage: Evidence from the auditory moving window (AMW) technique. Brain and Language, 77, 10–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underwood, G., Galpin, A., & Schmitt, N. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In Schmitt, N. (Ed), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 23–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vaid, J. (2008). The bilingual brain: What is right and what is left. In Altarriba, J., & Heredia, R.R. (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 129–144). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., & Martínez, F. (2001, April). Figurative language and thought across languages: What transfers? Poster presented at the Third International Symposium on Bilingualism, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J.J.A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 229–270). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van Der Meij, M., Cuetos, F., Carreiras, M., & Barber, H.A. (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of language switching in second language learners. Psychophysiology, 48, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker-Sidits, D. (2003). Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45–57.Google Scholar
Veldhuis, D., & Kurvers, J. (2012). Offline segmentation and online language processing units: The influence of literacy. Written Language and Literacy, 15, 165–184.Google Scholar
Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P., & Wascher, E. (2005). Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 19, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber-Fox, C.M., & Neville, H.J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber-Fox, C.M., & Neville, H.J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44, 1338–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K.I. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyble, B., Potter, M.C., & Mattar, M. (2012). RSVP in orbit: Identification of single and dual targets in motion. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 553–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×