Idiom comprehension in L2 learners

Tue Jun 10 21:59:33 UTC 2014

Brian, Peter, Phillip, and Keith,
Thanks for your comments. This is indeed an interesting discussion...
One thing to keep in mind is that all idioms are not alike. Some are more
transparent and analyzable than others. The transparent ones generally are
easier to understand than the opaque ones. With transparent idioms (e.g.,
paddle your own canoe, throw to the wolves, take someone under your wing),
the non-literal meaning is actually a metaphorical extension of the literal
meaning. So understanding the literal meaning actually helps you understand
the non-literal meaning.  In contrast, other idioms are more opaque (e.g.,
lead with one's chin, talk through one's hat, vote with one's feet). These
are generally more difficult for children, adolescents, and adults to
understand because the learner cannot easily perform the internal analysis.
The learner then is forced to examine the linguistic context (external
analysis) for clues to meaning. Research with English-speaking children and
adolescents shows that transparent idioms are easier to understand than
opaque, but that context clues can help one to learn/infer the nonliteral
meanings. Of course, familiarity can override the effects of opacity. For
example, even a 5-year-old will understand an opaque idiom (e.g., "They're
pulling up stakes") if it's used frequently in the child's environment in
meaningful contexts (people in the neighborhood often move). It might be
interesting to run these same experiments with L2 learners of different
ages. Maybe someone has already done this. I don't know. But I would predict
similar patterns would occur with L2 learners as with L1 learners. All
languages have figurative expressions that have to be understood.  It's also
worth mentioning that opacity is a relative concept, because language is
always changing. To illustrate, when the now-opaque expression "lead with
one's chin" came into the English language as an idiom, it likely was
transparent because it referred to an aggressive boxer who bravely stuck his
chin out (literally), taking little care to protect himself from his
opponent in the ring.  Knowing the original context of this idiom suddenly
makes it transparent, and one can appreciate its meaning upon hearing the
following comment:  "Jeremy (who is not afraid to express his left-wing
political views) leads with his chin, even at his aunt's tea party!" 
Marilyn Nippold

-----Original Message-----
From: info-childes at googlegroups.com [mailto:info-childes at googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Brian MacWhinney
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:47 AM
To: CHILDES
Subject: Re: Idiom comprehension in L2 learners

Peter,

Peter,

   Thanks for keeping this thread alive.  It appears that the relation of
chunking to the L2 idiom comprehension issue can be seen as the tip of a
fairly fascinating (and sometimes dangerous) iceberg.  The danger I am
thinking about is the idea that a given population (children, L2, aphasics,
Williams Syndrome) relies differentially on chunking.  What are my concerns?
They arise from a consideration of the multiplicity of the factors involved
here:
1.  There was a discussion in the 1990s about "the importance of starting
small" based on Jeff Elman's simulations stimulated by Elissa Newport's
analyses.  On a computational level, Rohde and Plaut (1999) reported
problems replicating Elman's analyses. On a conceptual level, I was worried
that this theory generated the prediction that learners with the smallest
working memories would learn language faster.  On an observational level,
there was the literature from Peters, MacWhinney, Vihman, and others
emphasizing the idea that children often picked up large chunks or amalgams
which they later subjected to analysis.  
2.  There is a literature in SLA that emphasizes the role of big chunks.
This idea aligns well with the less is more notion in some regards, but it
has its own problems. The classic here is Pawley and Snyder (1983) which
pointed to the ways that second language learners use frames productively.
More recently, Ellis has emphasized the role of chunks in second language
learning.  It is clear that both L2 and L1 learners use automatized frames
such as "I would like to have a ___" .  But these stretches can also be
analyzed by both L1 and L2 learners.  So, is there a fundamental difference
here?
3.  There are important effects of levels of analysis for phonology.  As
Marilyn notes, once children have acquired a phonological system, they can
use this to analyze words segmentally.  Eventually, the rise of phonological
awareness and morphological awareness shows how extracted units can break up
chunks.  Sapir observed this too in his paper on the psychological reality
of the phoneme.
4.  As Diana Van Lanckner Sidtis and others have shown so clearly, the brain
provides right hemisphere storage for formulaic language and for
intonational packaging.  Lesions to the RH lead to problems with intonation,
whereas people with nearly global LH damage may still have some formulas
encoded in the RH or perhaps the basal ganglia.  However, whether or not
this impacts normal populations differentially is unclear.
5.   Michael Ullman notes that estrogen supports declarative memory, whereas
basal ganglia processes support procedural memory.  If we want to associate
chunking with proceduralization, then there could be some hormonal basis for
sex differences.  However, both men and women produce estrogen - probably
enough to keep declarative memory functioning.  
6.  People like Paradis have argued that older learners cannot
proceduralize, but Avi Karni has shown that even senior citizens can
consolidate procedural memories if they are allowed to take a short nap.  In
any case, do we want to argue that older L2 learners do more chunking (i.e.
proceduralization) or less and for what?
7.  A major problem involves the level on which we want to envision chunking
occurring.  Are we talking only about strings of specific lexical items or
would be treat constructions as chunks and would we want to claim that they
are differentially impacted for different learner groups?
8.  And then there is the issue of the status of compounds and derivational
morphology. Are these chunks or analyzed?  Can't they be both?
9.  It could be that L2 learners use more chunking than L1 learners, given
their possibly greater working memory (Halford, Halpern and others), it is
imaginable that they can store large pieces. But we also know that they
often fail to store word groups as well as L1 learners, perhaps because of
their excessive use of analysis during comprehension.  For example, they may
tend to learn German nouns without linking them tightly to complete nominal
phrases including the determiners and adjectives that encode their gender
and case.  There is a huge SLA literature on this topic.
10. Marilyn Nippold has studied idiom comprehension mostly with older
children, and I have only read a few of her many papers, but it is clear
that idiom comprehension is not complete during early childhood. As she
noted in her posting, this places some limits on how we want to think about
young children's ability to just pick up formulaic language automatically.
Of course, a lot of this can be influenced by literacy, input, and so on.
11.  An then there is the issue of really big chunks such as Homer's memory
for the Iliad or the German girl who can give you the sentence before and
after any given sentence from Goethe.  Does this type of chunking have
anything to do with all the other types mentioned above?

Glancing across this complex territory, it seems to me that one should be
careful about imagining that, in general, L2 learners use more chunking than
L1 learners and therefore learn idioms more quickly.  Given their possibly
greater working memory (Halford, Halpern, and others), it is imaginable that
they can store large pieces, but probably these are also analysed. So, when
we come to the issue of learning idioms and other frozen forms of the type
described by Wray, do we want to think of these as chunks or as
non-compositional groupings of independent lexical items? And if we actually
get solid data pointing to any population differences, do we then have
evidence to attribute this to neurology, as opposed to language support?
And do we want to differentiate any of these possible differences in terms
of whether the chunking applies to phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax,
speech acts, or conversational patterns?

The theories of L1, L2, and language disorders all need to deal with these
issues, but in doing so, they will need to break up the concept of
"chunking" into the many pieces and dimensions of which it is composed.  And
they will need richer longitudinal data to study the development of chunking
and analysis across all of these linguistic levels and structures in greater
detail.

-- Brian MacWhinney

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Info-CHILDES" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/info-childes/268B2D6A-560F-48A6-8B9D-40A95
3ED86C0%40cmu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/info-childes/007501cf84f7%2443ae2af0%24cb0a80d0%24%40uoregon.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.