Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences

D. Van Lancker, G. J. Canter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

'Ditropically' ambiguous sentences (each having both a literal and an idiomatic interpretation) were prepared for listener's discrimination judgments, and for silent readers' rankings on an 'idiomaticity' scale. Listeners were unable to discriminate the literal from the idiomatic versions when presented with randomized single sentences excised from paragraph contexts. There was a bias toward interpreting the sentences as idioms, which correlated with the rankings of each sentence for its likelihood of idiomatic use. Listeners were easily able to identify the literal and the idiomatic versions of the same ditropic sentences presented in pairs or singularly, when speakers sought purposively to convey the contrasting meanings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)64-69
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Volume24
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1981

Fingerprint

listener
interpretation
ranking
discrimination
trend
Literal Interpretation
Idiomatics
Discrimination (Psychology)
Listeners
Ranking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences. / Van Lancker, D.; Canter, G. J.

In: Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, p. 64-69.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d93a1dcb2b45464ab9053c9bf96ddaf5,
title = "Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences",
abstract = "'Ditropically' ambiguous sentences (each having both a literal and an idiomatic interpretation) were prepared for listener's discrimination judgments, and for silent readers' rankings on an 'idiomaticity' scale. Listeners were unable to discriminate the literal from the idiomatic versions when presented with randomized single sentences excised from paragraph contexts. There was a bias toward interpreting the sentences as idioms, which correlated with the rankings of each sentence for its likelihood of idiomatic use. Listeners were easily able to identify the literal and the idiomatic versions of the same ditropic sentences presented in pairs or singularly, when speakers sought purposively to convey the contrasting meanings.",
author = "{Van Lancker}, D. and Canter, {G. J.}",
year = "1981",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "64--69",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences

AU - Van Lancker, D.

AU - Canter, G. J.

PY - 1981

Y1 - 1981

N2 - 'Ditropically' ambiguous sentences (each having both a literal and an idiomatic interpretation) were prepared for listener's discrimination judgments, and for silent readers' rankings on an 'idiomaticity' scale. Listeners were unable to discriminate the literal from the idiomatic versions when presented with randomized single sentences excised from paragraph contexts. There was a bias toward interpreting the sentences as idioms, which correlated with the rankings of each sentence for its likelihood of idiomatic use. Listeners were easily able to identify the literal and the idiomatic versions of the same ditropic sentences presented in pairs or singularly, when speakers sought purposively to convey the contrasting meanings.

AB - 'Ditropically' ambiguous sentences (each having both a literal and an idiomatic interpretation) were prepared for listener's discrimination judgments, and for silent readers' rankings on an 'idiomaticity' scale. Listeners were unable to discriminate the literal from the idiomatic versions when presented with randomized single sentences excised from paragraph contexts. There was a bias toward interpreting the sentences as idioms, which correlated with the rankings of each sentence for its likelihood of idiomatic use. Listeners were easily able to identify the literal and the idiomatic versions of the same ditropic sentences presented in pairs or singularly, when speakers sought purposively to convey the contrasting meanings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0019428080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0019428080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 64

EP - 69

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 1

ER -