Contrasting Bilingual and Monolingual Idiom Processing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we survey what is currently known about bilingual idiom processing and present data from a study that investigates three questions about the comprehension of idioms in English-French bilinguals. First, do the linguistic factors that control monolingual idiom comprehension (e.g., familiarity, literal plausibility, semantic decomposability; Libben & Titone, 2008) similarly control bilingual comprehension? Second, does an idiom's cross-language similarity affect comprehension? Third, does native language status interact with idiom processing in these respects? To address these questions, we conducted a comprehension study where English-French bilinguals read English sentences that included idioms from a prior normative first-language study that were further coded for their similarity to idioms in French. We also manipulated whether the idiom-final word was presented in English (intact condition) or French (code-switched condition). The results suggest that bilinguals are sensitive to the same linguistic factors that control idiom processing for monolinguals (i.e., familiarity) and that previous work suggesting an increased role for semantic decomposability (Abel, 2003) may actually be due to cross-language overlap. The implications for bilingual lexical representation and processing are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it