The perceptual and acoustic characteristics of Korean idiomatic and literal sentences

References

• Abdelli-Beruh N., Ahn J., Yang S., Sidtis D. 2007. Acoustic cues differentiating idiomatic from literal expressions across languages. American Speech and Hearing Association Convention, Boston, MA, November 15–17.
   Google Scholar
• Allen G. D., Hawkins S. 1978. The development of phonological rhythm. In: Bell A., Hooper J.B., (eds.) Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North Holland, p. 173–185.
   Google Scholar
• Allen G. D., Hawkins S. 1980. Phonological rhythm: definition and development. In: Yeni-Komshian G.H., Kavanagh J.F., Ferguson C.A., (eds.) Child phonology. Volume I: production. New York: Academic Press, p. 227–255.
   Google Scholar
• Altenberg B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In: Cowie A.P., (ed.) Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 101–124.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby M. 2006. Prosody and idioms in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10): 1580–1597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkhuysen P., Krahmer E., Swerts M. 2010. Crossmodal and incremental perception of audiovisual cues to emotional speech. Language and Speech, 53(1): 3–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bélanger N., Baum S. R., Titone D. 2009. Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 110(1): 38–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman R. A., Ravid D. 2010. Interpretation and recall of proverbs in three school-age populations. First Language, 30(2): 155–173.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P., Weenink D. 2005. PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer, version 5.0., http://www.praat.org.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger D. 1977. Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum, 2(2): 157–169.
   Google Scholar
• Cappelle B., Styron Y., Pulvermüller F. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain: MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language, 115(3): 189–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conklin K., Schmitt N. 2008. Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1): 72–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crystal D. 1979. Prosodic development. In: Fletcher P., Garman M., (eds.) Language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 174–197.
   Google Scholar
• Erman B. 2007. Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(1): 25–53.
   Google Scholar
• Erman B., Warren B. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1): 29–62.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore C. 1979. On fluency. In: Fillmore C.J., Kempler D., Wang W.S-Y., (eds.) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. London: Academic Press, p. 85–102.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs R. W., Gonzales G. P. 1985. Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20(3): 243–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs R. W., Nayak N. P. 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1): 100–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs R. W., Nayak N. P., Bolton J. L., Keppel M. E. 1989. ‘Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition, 17(1): 58–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grichkovtsova I., Morel M., Lacheret A. 2012. The role of voice quality and prosodic contour in affective speech. Speech Communication, 54(3): 414–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallin A.E., Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2013. A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic patterns in Swedish proverb, in press.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz L. M., Manelis L. 1973. Recognition and cued recall of idioms and phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2): 291–296.
   Google Scholar
• Iksop Lee S., Ramsey R. 2001. The Korean language. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jun S. A. 1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody: intonational phonology and prosodic structure. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Jun S. A. 1998. The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 15(2): 189–226.
   Google Scholar
• Jun S. A. 2005. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In: Jun S.A., (ed.) Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 201–229.
   Google Scholar
• Katz A. N., Ferretti T. R. 2001. Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4): 193–221.
   Google Scholar
• Katz J. J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In: Anderson S., Kiparsky E., (eds.) Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, p. 357–376.
   Google Scholar
• Katz W. F., Beach C. M., Jenouri K., Verma S. 1996. Duration and fundamental frequency correlates of phrase boundaries in productions by children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(5): 3179–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiper K. 2009. Formulaic genres. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiper K., van Egmond M., Kempen G., Sprenger S. 2007. Slipping on superlemmas: multi-word lexical items in speech production. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3): 313–357.
   Google Scholar
• Libben M. R., Titone D. 2008. The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36(6): 1103–1121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman P. 1963. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6(3): 172–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin P. 2010. The phonology of formulaic sequences: a review. In: Wood D., (ed.) Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, p. 174–193.
   Google Scholar
• Lounsbury F. G. 1963. Linguistics and psychology. In: Koch S., (ed.) Psychology: a study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., p. 552–582.
   Google Scholar
• Mackay K., Ashby M. 2006. Prosodic cues to idiomatic and literal interpretation in English. Proceedings of British Association of Academic Phoneticians.
   Google Scholar
• Mehler J., Jusczyk P. W., Lambertz G., Halsted N., Bertoncini J., Amiel-Tison C. 1998. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29(2): 143–178.
   Google Scholar
• Murray I. R., Arnott J. L. 2008. Applying an analysis of acted vocal emotions to improve the simulation of synthetic speech. Computer Speech and Language, 22(2): 107–129.
   Google Scholar
• Nunberg G., Sag I. A., Wasow T. 1994. Idioms. Language, 70(3): 491–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osgood C. E., Hoosain R. 1974. Salience of the word as a unit in the perception of language. Perception and Psychophysics, 15(1): 168–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawley A., Syder F. H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: Richards J.C., Schmidt R., (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman, p. 199–226.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker S. 1994. Language Instinct. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Reuterskiöld C., Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2012. Retention of idioms following one-time exposure. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2): 216–228.
   Google Scholar
• Shin J., Speer S. 2012. English lexical stress and spoken word recognition in Korean learners of English. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Shanghai, China, May 22–25.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair J. M. 1987. Collocation: a progress report. In: Steele R., Threadgold T., (eds.) Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. p. 319–331.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair J. M. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siyanova-Chanturia A., Conklin K., Schmitt N. 2011. Adding more fuel to the fire: an eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2): 251–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speer S. R., Ito K. 2008. Prosody in first language acquisition – acquiring intonation as a tool to organize information in conversation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1): 90–110.
   Google Scholar
• Swinney D., Cutler A. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(5): 523–534.
   Google Scholar
• Tabossi P., Fanari R., Wolf K. 2008. Processing idiomatic expressions: effects of semantic compositionality. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2): 313–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabossi P., Fanari R., Wolf K. 2009. Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory and Cognition, 37(3): 529–540.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turner N. E., Katz A. N. 1997. The availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs. Pragmatics & Cognition, 5(2): 199–233.
   Google Scholar
• Underwood G., Schmitt N., Galpin A. 2004. The eyes have it: an eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In: Schmitt N., (ed.) Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, p. 155–172.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker D. 1987. Nonpropositional speech: neurolinguistic studies. In: Ellis A., (ed.) Progress in the psychology of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 49–118.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker D., Canter G. J. 1981. Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24(1): 64–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Lancker D., Canter G. J., Terbeek D. 1981. Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24(3): 330–335.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2003. Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: it takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1): 45–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2004. When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: toward a dual-process model of language, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39(1): 1–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2006. Where in the brain is nonliteral language? Metaphor and Symbol, 21(4): 213–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2008. Formulaic and novel language in a dual process model of language competence: evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In: Corrigan R., Moravcsik E.A., Ouali H., Wheatley K.M., (eds.) Formulaic language, volume 2. Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Co., p. 445–472.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D. 2010. Formulaic and novel expressions in mind and brain: empirical studies and a dual process model of language competence. In: Guendouzi J., Loncke F., Williams M., (eds.) The handbook of psycholinguistic & cognitive processes: perspectives in communication disorders. London: Taylor & Francis, p. 247–272.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis D., Rallon G. 2004. Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24(3): 207–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood D. 2010. Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication. London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Wray A., Perkins M. R. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1): 1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar