In this paper we argue that there is a large class of expressions, typified by ‘plastic flower’, ‘stuffed animal’ and ‘kosher bacon’, that have a unique semantics combining compositional, idiomatic and decompositional interpretation. These expressions are compositional because their constituents contribute their meanings to the meanings of the wholes; they are idiomatic because their interpretation involves assigning dictionary entries to non-terminal elements in their syntactic structure; and they are decompositional because their meanings have proper parts that are not the meanings (...) of any of their syntactic constituents. We argue that extensionalist semantics, on which the meaning of an expression is a function from domains to extensions in those domains, cannot provide an adequate account of the semantics of these expressions, and that supplementation with a theory of pragmatic interpretation does not improve the situation. We show how our account explains the intensionality and the productivity of these expressions. (shrink)

Conversation analysis research on naturally occurring NS-NS talk-in-interaction has revealed that participants observably orient to shared expectations of the socio-interactional role of idiomatic expressions, particularly with regard to topic termination and transition. This study has analysed NS-NNS, as well as NS-NS, spontaneous conversation in order to evaluate and uncover recurrent features associated with the use of such expressions. Two main sequential patterns have been observed: one, occurring in both NS-NS and NS-NNS talk, is connected with topic termination and transition, in (...) some cases being extended to allow for the negotiation of interactional alignment between participants; the other, a `negotiative metatalk sequence', follows idiomatic expressions at points of possible topic conclusion and deals with NS-NNS trouble spots in which conversational participants' lack of shared understanding triggers coordinated negotiatory action that clears the way for the introduction of a new topic. (shrink)

Prior research has shown that various types of conventional multiword chunks are processed faster than matched novel strings, but it is unclear whether this processing advantage extends to variant multiword chunks that are less formulaic. To determine whether the processing advantage of multiword chunks accommodates variations in the canonical phrasal template, we examined the robustness of the processing advantage (i.e., predictability) of binomial phrases with non‐canonical conjunctions (e.g.,salt and also pepper; salt as well as pepper). Results from the cloze study (...) (Experiment 1) showed that there was a high tendency of producing the canonical conjunct (pepper), even in the binomials that contained non‐formulaic conjunctions. Consistent with these findings, results from two eye tracking studies (Experiments 2a and 2b) showed that canonical conjuncts were read faster than novel conjuncts that were matched on word length (e.g.,paprika), even in the binomials with variant conjunctions. This robust online processing advantage was replicated in a self‐paced reading study that compared all three conjunction types (Experiment 3). Taken together, these findings show that binomials with variant function words also receive facilitated processing relative to matched novel strings, even though both types of strings are neither conventional nor relatively frequent. Exploratory analyses revealed that this processing speed advantage was driven by the lexical–semantic association between the canonical conjuncts (salt–pepper), rather than lexical and phrasal frequency. Overall, these results highlight flexibility in the processing of multiword chunks that current models of multiword storage and processing must take into account. (shrink)