McGill University, Montre´al, CanadaAccepted 8 July 2005Available online 22 August 2005IntroductionAlthough much is known about idiom processing in normal in-dividuals (e.g., Titone & Connine, 1999), some controversial findingshave emerged for brain-damaged patients (e.g., Papagno, Tabossi,Colombo, & Zampetti, 2004), and very few studies have examined therole of prosody in spoken idiom production. In normal subjects, VanLancker, Canter, and Terbeek (1981) have shown that literal produc-tions of potentially idiomatic phrases are longer in duration, exhibitlonger pauses between words, and demonstrate more rapid changes inF0 within words and phrases relative to the same phrases producedwith an idiomatic reading. However, idioms differ with respect to di-mensions like familiarity and compositionality (not heretofore con-trolled) that may influence production, and may be manifest differentlyin productions by brain-damaged populations.With respect to the ability of left- (LHD) and right-hemispherebrain-damaged (RHD) patients to signal idiomatic relative to literalinterpretations through prosodic cues, current theories concerning theneural bases of prosody yield somewhat different predictions (seeBaum & Pell, 1999 for review). According to one perspective, thelinguistic relevance of prosodic cues is critical and intimately linkedwith the prosodic domain or size of prosodic unit, with smaller-sizedunits processed by LH mechanisms and larger units mediated by RHmechanisms (Gandour, et al., 2003). Although idioms are phrase-length units, some studies have suggested that they are initially ac-cessed and stored as lexical units (Titone, Libben, & Romero, 2004;but cf. Papagno et al., 2004). Under this view, it could be hypothesizedthat LHD patients may have difficulty producing the prosodic con-trasts that disambiguate literal from figurative interpretations of idi-oms (assuming a lexical prosodic domain). Further support for thisprediction is based on the suggestion that much of the idiomatic/literalprosodic distinction is carried by temporal cues, with which LHDpatients are known to have difficulty. In contrast, because idioms andtheir literal counterparts are, in fact, phrasal units, one might predictthat RHD patients may be unable to successfully produce the requiredcontrast. To assess these possibilities, following Van Lancker andcolleagues (1981), a set of literally plausible idiomatic expressions (e.g.,‘he kicked the bucket’, but not ‘he was on cloud nine’) were embedded inbiasing contexts that disambiguated the intended meaning as literal oridiomatic. Speakers were instructed to explicitly contrast the targetsentences as clearly as possible to convey the intended interpretation.MethodsSubjectsParticipants included LHD patients, RHD patients, age-matchednon-brain-damaged individuals, and young normal speakers.StimuliThirty-two idioms, following the ‘‘(s)he verbed the noun’’ form,were included as stimuli; these idioms were subgrouped with respectto the semantic decomposability of the verb and the noun (Libben,Borovay, & Titone, 2005) and controlled for dimensions such asfamiliarity and predictability of the idiom-final word. The noun wasrated as highly related to the idiomatic meaning for 8 idioms (Nhigh), the verb was rated as highly related for eight idioms (V high),both the noun and the verb were rated as highly related for eightidioms (NV high), and neither the noun nor the verb was rated asrelated for the final eight idioms (NV low). All idioms were embed-ded in an idiomatic and a literal biasing context and presented tospeakers in a manner such that the interpretive contrast was high-lighted. Subjects were required to read the context sentence silentlyand then produce the idiomatic or literal target sentence for re-cording on digital media.Acoustic analysesMeasures of total utterance duration, number, and length of pausesbetween words within the phrase, and durations of individual wordswithin the phrase were computed, as was mean F0 across the phrase,and the pattern of F0 rises and falls within the phrase.Brain and Language 95 (2005) 223–224www.elsevier.com/locate/b&l
Read full abstract