Idiom Comprehension: Two Approaches

• Authors: Szmyd Patrycja
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Basing on the two most influential theories in the literature on idiom comprehension (Glucksberg 2001; Vega Moreno 2003, 2004, 2005) as well as on the account of familiar metaphor comprehension (Wilson – Carston 2006), the present author proposes an account of comprehension of familiar idioms as metaphorical expressions. Unfamiliar metaphors are comprehended on-line in a relevance-guided comprehension procedure which involves adjustment of concepts encoded in idiom constituents. When the metaphorical denotation of the idiom is memorised, the well-known idiomatic string is comprehended just as familiar metaphors in the sense of Wilson – Carston (2006), i.e. in the process of disambiguation of two encoded senses.

Keywords

EN

idiom comprehension; theories; metaphor comprehension; disambiguation

• Publisher: Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw
• Journal: Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
• Year: 2012
• Issue: 21/2
• Pages: 65-78

Contributors

author

Szmyd Patrycja

• University of Warsaw

References

• Blasko, D., and Cynthia Connine. 1993. “Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19: 295–308.
• Bowdle, B., and Dedre Gentner. 2005. “The career of metaphor”. Psychological Review 112: 193–216.
• Fernando, Chitra. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gentner, D., and Phillip Wolff. 1997. “Alignment in the processing of metaphor”. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 331–55.
• Giora, Rachel. 2002. “Literal vs. figurative language: different or equal?”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487–506.
• Giora, Rachel. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Glucksberg, Sam. 2004. “On the automaticity of pragmatic process: a modular proposal”. [In:] Noveck, Ira A., and Dan Sperber (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 72–93.
• Glucksberg, Sam, Matthew S. McGlone, and Deanna Manfredi. 1997. “Property attribution in metaphor comprehension”. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 50–67.
• Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2006. “A deflationary account of metaphor”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171–203.
• Vega-Moreno, Rosa E. 2003. “Relevance Theory and the construction of idiom meaning”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 83–104.
• Vega-Moreno, Rosa E. 2004. “Metaphor interpretation and emergence”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 297–322.
• Vega-Moreno, Rosa E. 2005. “Idioms, transparency and pragmatic inference”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17.
• Wilson, Deirdre, and Robin Carston. 2006. “Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue”. Mind & Language 21: 404–433.
• Wilson, Deirdre, and Robin Carston. 2007. “A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc Concepts”. [In:] N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. (London: Palgrave), 230–259.