Factors that predict second language (L2) collocation knowledge have been extensively studied, but research on predictors of L2 knowledge of idioms is still limited. The aim of the present study is to examine the effect of various factors established in L2 collocation research on idioms. These include L2 proficiency, idiom frequency, and congruency status (whether the idiom can be literally translated into the first language or L1). To that end, 225 L1-Arabic–L2-English speakers completed three measures (familiarity rating, meaningfulness rating, and meaning recall) involving 72 English idioms, half congruent and half incongruent. Additionally, the participants completed a vocabulary size test as a rough measure of their English proficiency. We initially examined the association between the ratings provided by the L2 participants and those of L1 speakers, which are available through a norming study. Then, we fit mixed-effects models to examine predictors of the three outcome measures. Raw meaning recall scores indicated that only 33% of the target idioms had their meanings correctly recalled. The statistical analysis showed a strong positive interaction between the familiarity and meaningfulness ratings provided by L2 speakers. However, the association between L1 and L2 ratings was weaker. Results of mixed-effect modelling showed that for all three measures, only estimated proficiency and congruency were significant determinants of L2 idiomatic knowledge. Additionally, estimated proficiency modulated the congruency effect only for the rating measures, with a larger difference between congruent and incongruent idioms as proficiency increased. We discuss the implications of these findings to the teaching and learning of L2 idioms.
AbelB. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.
2.
AlaliF.A.SchmittN. (2012). Teaching formulaic sequences: The same as or different from teaching single words?TESOL Journal, 3, 153–180.
3.
BoersF.WebbS. (2015). Gauging the semantic transparency of idioms: Do natives and learners see eye to eye? In HerediaR.R.CieślickaA.B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 368–392). Cambridge University Press.
4.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–20.
5.
BulkesN.Z.TannerD. (2017). ‘Going to town’: Large-scale norming and statistical analysis of 870 American English idioms. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 772–783.
6.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing. of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 784–797.
7.
CarrolG.ConklinK.GyllstadH. (2016). Found in translation: The influence of the L1 on the reading of idioms in a L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 403–443.
8.
CarrolG.LittlemoreJ.Gillon DowensM. (2017). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44.
9.
Charteris-BlackJ. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23, 104–133.
10.
CieślickaA.B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.
11.
CieślickaA.B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In HerediaR.R.CieślickaA.B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 208–244). Cambridge University Press.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routlege Academic.
13.
ConklinK.SchmittN. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.
14.
DurrantP.Siyanova-ChanturiaA.KremmelB.SonbulS. (2022). Research methods in vocabulary studies. John Benjamins.
15.
EllisN.C.Simpson-VlachR.MaynardC. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.
16.
GrantL.BauerL. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree?Applied Linguistics, 25, 38–61.
17.
HubersF.CucchiariniC.StrikH. (2020). Second language learner intuitions of idiom properties: What do they tell us about L2 idiom knowledge and acquisition?Lingua, 246, Article 102940.
18.
KimJ.E.NamH. (2017). The pedagogical relevance of processing instruction in second language idiom acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 55, 93–132.
19.
LibbenM.TitoneD. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.
20.
LiontasJ. (2002). Context and idiom understanding in second languages. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, 155–185.
21.
LittlemoreJ.ChenP.T.KoesterA.BarndenJ. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32, 408–429.
22.
MacisM.SchmittN. (2017). Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations. Language Teaching Research, 21, 321e340.
23.
MearaP.MiralpeixI. (2017). Tools for researching vocabulary. Multilingual Matters.
24.
MertonR.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 56–63.
25.
MiralpeixI.MuñozC. (2018). Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to EFL language skills. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56, 1–24.
NordmannE.ClelandA.A.BullR. (2014). Familiarity breeds dissent: Reliability analyses for British-English idioms on measures of familiarity, meaning, literality, and decomposability. Acta Psychologica, 149, 87–95.
28.
ObermeierA.ElgortI. (2021). Deliberate and contextual learning of L2 idioms: The effect of learning conditions on online processing. System, 97, 102428.
29.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed June 2025).
30.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.SchmittN. (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.
31.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.MartinezR. (2015). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, 36, 549–569.
32.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.OmidianT. (2019). Key issues in researching multiword items. In WebbS. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 529–544). Routledge.
33.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Van Lanker SidtisD. (2019). What online processing tells us about formulaic language. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language (pp. 38–61). Routledge.
34.
SkoufakiS. (2008). Investigating the source of idiom transparency intuitions. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 20–41.
35.
SonbulS.El-DakhsD. (2020). Timed versus untimed recognition of L2 collocations: Does estimated proficiency modulate congruency effects?Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 1197–1222.
36.
SonbulS.El-DakhsD.A.S.Al-OtaibiH. (2020). Productive versus receptive L2 knowledge of polysemous phrasal verbs: A comparison of determining factors. System, 95, 102361.
37.
SonbulS.El-DakhsD.A.S.AlharbiR. (2024). Rendering natural collocations in a translation task: The effect of direction, congruency, semantic transparency, and proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34, 117–133.
38.
SteinelM.P.HulstijnJ.H.SteinelW. (2007). Second language idiom learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of direction of learning, direction of testing, idiom imageability, and idiom transparency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 449–484.
39.
TitoneD.ColumbusG.WhitfordV.MercierJ.LibbenM. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In HerediaR.R.CieślickaA.B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 171–207). Cambridge University Press.
40.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.
41.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
42.
YamashitaJ.JiangN. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668.
43.
YeganehjooM.ThaiY.N. (2012). Lexical access in production of idioms by proficient L2 learners. 3L – Language, Linguistics, Literature, 18, 87–104.
44.
ZhangX. (2017). Effects of receptive–productive integration tasks and prior knowledge of component words on L2 collocation development. System, 66, 156–167.
