Event Abstract

Back to Event

Effects of familiarity, context, and abstract representations on idiom processing in aphasia

Evelyn A. Milburn1*, Tessa Warren1 and Michael W. Dickey2, 3
  • 1 University of Pittsburgh, Psychology, United States
  • 2 University of Pittsburgh, Communication Science & Disorders, United States
  • 3 VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, United States

People with aphasia (PWA) often have impaired idiom processing. This could result from difficulty suppressing the literal meaning (Cacciari et al., 2006; Papagno et al., 2004). Supporting this, in an idiom-probe matching task in which PWA had to choose which of four probe words went best with familiar idioms, Cacciari et al. (2006) found that most errors were associated with the idiom’s literal meaning. However a post hoc analysis showed that PWA also chose more abstract foils than concrete foils. Cacciari et al. interpreted the choice of an abstract foil as indicating that the participant did not know the figurative meaning of the idiom, but knew that the literal meaning was not correct. This account predicts that the less accessible the figurative meaning of an idiom is, the more abstract errors PWA will make. Familiarity and context both can influence the accessibility of figurative meanings for idioms. Highly-familiar idioms have more familiar figurative meanings than literal meanings (Nordmann et al., 2014). Likewise, a figuratively-biased context can speed access of an idiom’s figurative meaning (Ortony et al., 1978), and aid healthy young adults’ comprehension of unfamiliar idioms (Qualls et al., 2003). The current study investigates the effects of the accessibility of figurative meaning on idiom comprehension in PWA by examining error patterns after reading high- and low-familiarity idioms presented with and without figuratively-biased contexts. PWA (n=18) and healthy age-matched controls (n=32) read sentence pairs in a 3x2 design, crossing idiom type (highly-familiar vs. less-familiar vs. a literal paraphrase of the idiom’s figurative meaning) with the position of a figuratively-biased context sentence (before vs. after the idiom sentence; 1a-f, Figure 1a). Participants then chose which of four probe words (figurative target, literal foil, unrelated concrete foil, unrelated abstract foil) went best with the pair. For controls, the odds of choosing the target increased for high vs. low familiarity idioms (β=1.44; p<.01), but there were no effects of sentence order or literality, and no interaction (Figure 1b). In PWA, getting context after the idiom decreased the odds of choosing the target (β=-0.5495; p<.01), as did reading an idiomatic sentence compared to a literal sentence regardless of familiarity (β=-1.42; p<.01). Similar to controls, the odds of choosing the target increased for high vs. low familiarity idioms (β=0.514; p<.05). PWA made literal and abstract errors at the same rate, regardless of sentence order, sentence literality, or idiom familiarity. However, the odds of making an abstract error were higher for PWA than controls (β=1.67; p<.01). PWA’s accuracy was lower than controls’, but it improved with higher familiarity and supportive context, indicating that these manipulations boosted their access of figurative meanings. Interestingly, the rate of PWA’s literal and abstract errors did not differ by condition. This is unexpected under Cacciari et al.’s (2006) account that abstract errors result from difficulty accessing idiom meaning. Instead, abstract errors could result from PWA’s weaker access of both abstract-word meaning (e.g. Sandberg & Kiran, 2014) and idiom meaning if weaker meanings are more acceptable as potential matches than stronger meanings (i.e. for concrete words).

Figure 1
Image

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health through grant number R01DC011520 to the second and third authors and by grant number UL1TR000005 to the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of the University of Pittsburgh. It is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

References

Cacciari, C., Reati, F., Colombo, M. R., Padovani, R., Rizzo, S., & Papagno, C. (2006). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in aphasic patients. Neuropsychologia, 44(8), 1305-1314.

Cronk, B.C., Lima, S.D., & Schweigert, W.A. (1993). Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(1), 59-82.

Nordmann, E., Cleland, A. A., & Bull, R. (2014). Familiarity breeds dissent: Reliability analyses for British-English idioms on measures of familiarity, meaning, literality, and decomposability. Acta Psychologica, 149, 87-95.

Ortony, A., Schallert, D.L., Reynolds, R.E., & Antos, S.J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(465-477).

Papagno, C., & Genoni, A. (2004). The role of syntactic competence in idiom comprehension: a study on aphasic patients. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(5), 371-382.

Qualls, C.D., O'Brien, R.M., Blood, G.M., & Hammer, C.S. (2003). Contextual variation, familiarity, academic literacy, and rural adolescents' iidom knowledge. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 69-79.

Sandberg, C., & Kiran, S. (2014). Analysis of abstract and concrete word processing in persons with aphasia and age-matched neurologically healthy adults using fMRI. Neurocase, 20(4), 361-388.

Keywords: Idioms, sentence comprehension in aphasia, figurative language, Semantic Processing, Lexical Processing

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting, Tucson, United States, 18 Oct - 20 Oct, 2015.

Presentation Type: platform paper

Topic: Student first author

Citation: Milburn EA, Warren T and Dickey MW (2015). Effects of familiarity, context, and abstract representations on idiom processing in aphasia. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.65.00005

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 01 May 2015; Published Online: 24 Sep 2015.

* Correspondence: Ms. Evelyn A Milburn, University of Pittsburgh, Psychology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, eam115@pitt.edu