This study investigates the integration of literal completions of idiomatic multiword expressions (MWEs) into two linguistic contexts: one promoting a literal interpretation and the other a figurative one, requiring reinterpretation to align with figurative bias. Sixteen Italian idioms were distributed in two groups by their Potential Idiomatic Ambiguity (PIA) score, an index of literal plausibility, decomposability and transparency. Using experimental dialogues, the study tested whether high-PIA idioms receive higher acceptability ratings across both contexts than low-PIA idioms. Eighty-four Italian-speaking participants rated idiom literal completions within literal and figurative contexts. Results show that literal completions of high-PIA idioms integrate better across contexts, while those of low-PIA idioms receive lower ratings and have longer combined reading and rating times. This supports hybrid models of idiom processing, emphasizing the role of idiomatic features and context in balancing figurative and compositional interpretations. This study also marks an initial effort to experimentally trace systematicity within idiomatic wordplay, challenging the idea that it lacks relevance for linguistic research while outlining limitations and directions for future work.

When describing motion events, English encodes Manner of motion in the verb and Path of motion in a satellite (s-framing). Brazilian Portuguese (BP), however, encodes Path in the verb and elaborates Manner adverbially (v-framing). This study investigates at what stages of L2 proficiency L2BP and English learners’ acceptability ratings converge with those of L1 speakers when rating sentences with Manner elaborated in the verb (Manner-verb) or in an adverb: a prepositional phrase (Manner-prep) or subordinate clause (Manner-AdvClause). Participants (n = 176) consisted of L1/L2English and L1/L2BP speakers. L2ers were grouped according to language proficiency (Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced). Results of ordinal logistic regressions show that Intermediate proficiency is associated with Manner-verb (L2BP) and Manner-prep ratings (L2English), and that Advanced proficiency is associated with Manner-verb (L2English) and Manner-AdvClause judgments (L2English and L2BP). These findings contribute to the limited body of work on the acquisition of v-framed L2s and the development of low-proficiency learners.

It is controversial which idioms can occur with which syntactic structures. For example, can Mary kicked the bucket (figurative meaning: ‘Mary died’) be passivized to The bucket was kicked by Mary? We present a series of experiments in which we test which structures are compatible with which idioms in German (for which there are few experimental data so far) and English, using acceptability judgments. For some of the tested structures – including German left dislocation, scrambling, and prefield fronting – it is particularly contested to what extent they are restricted by semantic factors and, as a consequence, to what extent they are compatible with idioms. In our data, these structures consistently showed similar limitations: they were fully compatible with one subset of our test idioms (those categorized as semantically compositional) and degraded with another (those categorized as non-compositional). Our findings only partly align with previously proposed hierarchies of structures with respect to their compatibility with idioms.