This study investigates how figurative language is processed by learners of a second language (L2). With an experiment testing L2 comprehension of figurative expressions in three categories, each combining shared and unshared first language (L1) and L2 lexical representations and conceptual representations in a different way, the study investigates the effects of L1 conceptual knowledge, L1 linguistic knowledge and L1 frequency. I predict that in cases where the L1 and L2 share similarities in terms of conceptual knowledge (e.g. ANGER IS FIRE) and metaphorical expressions (e.g. His eyes are burning with anger), learners will better comprehend the L2 figurative expressions than in cases where the L1 and L2 share no such similarities. I further predict that when L1 and L2 share similarities in both conceptual knowledge and metaphorical expression, L1 frequency will have a positive effect on L2 metaphorical comprehension. These hypotheses are tested by examining the comprehension of advanced-level L2 Korean learners whose native language is English. The testing items are 54 Korean metaphorical expressions related to three emotion concepts (ANGER, HAPPINESS and SADNESS) presented to participants in one decontextualized and two contextualized tasks (limited and elaborated). The results demonstrate that the effects of L1 conceptual/linguistic knowledge and L1 frequency vary depending on the given context. The L2 learners performed significantly better with figurative language for which L1 and L2 show similarities at both lexical and conceptual levels, but only in the conditions of no or limited context. In the same conditions, the study also found a significant effect of L1 frequency on L2 processing of figurative language. This study suggests that the L1 has considerable influence on how L2 metaphorical expressions are processed in a nonsupportive context, even at higher levels of proficiency.
AbelB (2003) English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research19: 329–58.
2.
AmbridgeBPineJMRowlandCFYoungCR (2007) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition106: 87–129.
3.
ArnonISniderN (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language62: 67–82.
4.
Bley-VromanR (2002) Frequency in production, comprehension, and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 209–13.
5.
BoersF (2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics21: 553–71.
6.
BoersFDemecheleerM (2001) Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal55: 255–62.
7.
BortfeldH (2002) What native and non-native speakers’ images for idioms tell us about figurative language. In: HerediaRAltarribaJ (eds) Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 275–95.
BortfeldHBrennanSE (1997) Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and non-native speakers. Discourse Processes23: 119–47.
10.
BuckinghamL (2006) A multilingual didactic approach to idioms using a conceptual framework. Language Design8: 35–45.
11.
BybeeJ (2007) The emergent lexicon. In: BybeeJ (ed.) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 279–93.
12.
BybeeJHopperP (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13.
BylundEJarvisS (2011) L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition14: 47–59.
14.
CacciariC (1993) The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. In: CacciariCTabossiP (eds) Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27–55.
15.
CacciariCTabossiP (1988) The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language27: 668–83.
16.
Charteris-BlackJ (2002) Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics23: 104–33.
17.
CieślickaA (2004) On processing figurative language: Towards a model of language comprehension in foreign language learners. Poznań: Motivex.
18.
CieślickaA (2006) Literal salience in online-processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research22: 115–44.
19.
CieślickaA (2007) Language experience and fixed expressions: Difference in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings in L1 and L2 idioms. In: NenonenMNiemiS (eds) Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first Nordic conference on syntactic freezes. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press, 55–70.
20.
CieślickaA (2010) Formulaic language in L2: Storage, retrieval and production of idioms by second language learners. In: PützMSicolaL (eds) Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 149–68.
21.
CieślickaA (2013) Second language learners’ processing of idiomatic expressions: Does compositionality matter? In: Drozdzial-SzelestKPawlakM (eds) Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer, 115–36.
22.
CollinsLEllisNC (eds) (2009) Input and second language construction learning: Frequency, form, and function. Modern Language Journal93: whole issue.
23.
ConklinKSchmittN (2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics29: 72–89.
24.
CortsDPMeyersK (2002) Conceptual clusters in figurative language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research31: 391–408.
25.
DeignanAGabryśDSolskaA (1997) Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal51: 352–60.
26.
DurrantPSchmittN (2010) Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research26: 163–88.
27.
EllisNC (1998) Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning48: 631–64.
28.
EllisNC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
29.
EllisNC (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: DoughtyCJLongMH (eds) The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 63–103.
30.
EllisNCCadiernoT (2009) Constructing a second language (Introduction to special section). Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7: 111–39.
31.
GibbsRW (1993) Process and products in making sense of tropes. In: OrtonyA (ed) Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–76.
32.
GibbsRWNayakNP (1989) Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology21: 100–138.
33.
GibbsRWLimaPFrancuzoE (2004) Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics36: 1189–1210.
34.
GibbsRWNayakNPCuttingC (1989) How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language28: 576–93.
35.
GioraR (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics8: 183–206.
36.
GioraR (1999) On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics31: 919–29.
37.
GioraR (2002) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?Journal of Pragmatics34: 487–506.
38.
GioraR (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
IrujoS (1986) Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly20: 287–304.
40.
JarvisS (1998) Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington, IN: IULC.
41.
JarvisS (2000) Semantic and conceptual transfer. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition3: 19–21.
42.
JarvisS (2007) Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics4: 43–71.
43.
JarvisS (2011) Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition14: 1–8.
44.
JarvisSOdlinT (2000) Morphological type, spatial reference and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition22: 535–56.
45.
JarvisSPavlenkoA (2008) Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
46.
JiangN (2000) Lexical development and representation in a second language. Applied Linguistics21: 47–77.
47.
JiangN (2002) Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 617–38.
48.
JiangN (2004) Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal88: 416–32.
49.
JiangNNekrasovaTM (2007) The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal91: 433–45.
50.
KecskesI (2000) A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics32: 605–25.
51.
KecskesI (2001) The ‘graded salience hypothesis’ in second language acquisition. In: PützMNiemeierSDirvenR (eds) Applied cognitive linguistics: Volume 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 249–71.
52.
KecskesI (2006) On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research22: 219–37.
53.
KecskesI (2008) Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics40: 385–405.
54.
KellermanE (1995) Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics15: 125–50.
55.
KövecsesZSzabóP (1996) Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics17: 326–55.
56.
KrollJFStewartE (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language33: 149–74.
57.
LibbenMRTitoneDA (2008) The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition36: 1103–21.
58.
LievenE (2008) Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach. In: BehrensH (ed) The handbook of cross-cultural developmental science. New York: Psychology Press, 60–98.
59.
LiontasJ (2002) Context and idiom understanding in second languages. In: Foster-CohenSRuthenbergTPoschenM (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook2: 155–85.
60.
LowieWVerspoorM (2004) Input versus transfer? The role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 prepositions. In: AchardMNiemeierS (eds) Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–94.
61.
MatlockTHerediaRR (2002) Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In: HerediaRRAltarribaJ (eds) Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 251–74.
62.
NelsonE (1992) Memory for metaphor by nonfluent bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research21: 111–25.
63.
OdlinT (2005) Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?Annual Review of Applied Linguistic25: 3–25.
64.
PavlenkoA (1999) New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition2: 209–30.
65.
PavlenkoA (2009) Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In: PavlenkoA (ed.) The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 125–60.
66.
PickenJD (2001) Metaphor in narrative and the foreign language learner. Nottingham Linguistic Circular16: 63–71.
67.
PierrehumbertJ (2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In: BybeeJHopperP (eds) Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–57.
68.
RobinsonPEllisNC (eds) (2008) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
69.
Siyanova-ChanturiaAConklinKSchmittN (2011) Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and nonnative speakers. Second Language Research27: 1–22.
70.
SprengerA. (2006) Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language54: 161–84.
71.
StefanowitschA (2006) Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In: StefanowitschAGriesST (eds) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 61–105.
72.
TheaksonALLievenEVMPineJMRowlandCF (2004) Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax. Journal of Child Language31: 61–99.
73.
TitoneDAConnineCN (1999) On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics31: 1655–74.
74.
TomaselloM (2000) First steps in a usage based theory of first language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics11: 61–82.
75.
TomaselloM (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
TürkerE (2013) Corpus-based approach to emotion metaphors in Korean: A case study of anger, happiness and sadness. Review of Cognitive Linguistics11: 73–144.
77.
WolterBGyllstadH (2013) Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35: 451–82.
78.
WrayA (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79.
YamashitaJJiangN (2010) L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly44: 647–68.
80.
YeganehjooM. (2012) The influence of cross-linguistic similarities on L2 idiom production. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies18: 91–107.
