| (1) | a. | The fearless climber, who was on a climb alone in the mountains, was ready to play with fire with any risk if necessary later on. |
| b. | The young camper, who was already bored without any of his friends, was ready to play with fire from the grill if necessary later on. |
Table 1
Linguistic and general cognitive constructs: Factor loadings and variance explained.
| CONSTRUCT | N | EXPL. VARIANCE | INCLUDED TESTS | LOADING |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linguistic knowledge | 112 | 58% | Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test | 0.84 |
| Spelling | 0.75 | |||
| Dutch Author Recognition Test | 0.82 | |||
| Idiom recognition | 0.54 | |||
| Prescriptive grammar | 0.83 | |||
| Processing speed | 107 | 53% | Auditory simple reaction time | 0.71 |
| Auditory choice reaction time | 0.83 | |||
| Letter comparison | 0.48 | |||
| Visual simple reaction time | 0.74 | |||
| Visual choice reaction time | 0.81 | |||
| Visual working memory | 106 | 30% | Corsi block clicking forward | 0.82 |
| Corsi block clicking backward | 0.85 | |||
| Sentence comprehension and prediction skills | 105 | 55% | Gender cue activation | 0.91 |
| Verb semantics activation | 0.91 | |||
| Word reading skills | 99 | 40% | Klepel | 0.75 |
| One-minute | 0.83 | |||
| Maximal speech rate | 0.63 | |||
| Phonological verbal fluency | 0.72 |
Figure 1
Correlations between individual differences predictors.
| (2) | a. | In deze boekenwinkel heb ik laatst dat mooie boek gevonden. Ik tikte hem op de kop toen. |
| Transl.: In this bookstore, I recently found that nice book. I made a good deal that time. | ||
| b. | Die hond heeft laatst mijn schoenen kapotgebeten. Ik tikte hem op de kop toen. | |
| Transl.: That dog recently bit my shoes to pieces. I tapped him on the head that time. |
Table 2
Average reading times and standard deviations (ms) by context for the idiom final word and the spill-over word.
| CONTEXT | IDIOM FINAL NOUN | SPILL-OVER WORD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEAN | SD | MEAN | SD | |
| None | 364.93 | 178.44 | 418.97 | 209.46 |
| Figuratively biasing | 359.80 | 155.94 | 419.23 | 207.98 |
| Literally biasing | 356.45 | 155.28 | 414.28 | 189.95 |
Table 3
Idiom-final noun regression model with logged RTs as dependent variable (the no-context condition as the reference category).
| FIXED EFFECTS | ß (SE) | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.4830 (0.0567) | 43.768 | <0.001*** |
| Fig. biasing context (FBC) | 0.0003 (0.0068) | 0.049 | 0.961 |
| Lit. biasing context (LBC) | –0.0015 (0.0068) | –0.216 | 0.829 |
| Linguistic knowledge | –0.0403 (0.025) | –1.610 | 0.117 |
| FBC × Ling. knowledge | 0.0089 (0.0086) | 1.032 | 0.302 |
| LBC × Ling. knowledge | 0.0101 (0.0085) | 1.188 | 0.235 |
| Visual working memory (WM) | –0.0183 (0.0241) | –0.758 | 0.454 |
| FBC × Visual WM | 0.0045 (0.0083) | 0.540 | 0.589 |
| LBC × Visual WM | 0.0181 (0.0082) | 2.195 | 0.028* |
| Processing speed | 0.0201 (0.0232) | 0.865 | 0.393 |
| FBC × Processing speed | –0.0048 (0.0078) | –0.622 | 0.534 |
| LBC × Processing speed | –0.0155 (0.0078) | –1.997 | 0.046* |
| Non-verbal IQ | 0.0516 (0.0293) | 1.763 | 0.087. |
| FBC × Non-verbal IQ | –0.0056 (0.0101) | –0.554 | 0.580 |
| LBC × Non-verbal IQ | –0.0078 (0.0101) | –0.779 | 0.436 |
| Word reading | –0.0623 (0.0221) | –2.821 | 0.008** |
| FBC × Word reading | 0.0001 (0.0076) | 0.009 | 0.993 |
| LBC × Word reading | 0.0115 (0.0075) | 1.527 | 0.127 |
| Sentence compr. & pred. (SPC) | –0.0076 (0.0244) | –0.312 | 0.757 |
| FBC × SPC | –0.0014 (0.0082) | –0.169 | 0.866 |
| LBC × SPC | –0.0020 (0.0082) | –0.239 | 0.811 |
| Idiom transparency | –0.010019 (0.01) | –1.196 | 0.245 |
| Idiom final noun frequency | 0.0023 (0.0115) | 0.204 | 0.840 |
| Idiom final noun length | 0.0065 (0.0089) | 0.733 | 0.472 |
| RANDOM EFFECTS | VARIANCE | SD | |
| Participant | 0.0164 | 0.128 | |
| Item | 0.0019 | 0.043 | |
| Residual | 0.0078 | 0.088 | |
Figure 2
The interaction between Context and Visual working memory for the idiom-final word. The error bands represent the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3
The interaction between Context and Visual working memory for the idiom-final word. The error bands represent the 95% confidence interval.
Table 4
Spill-over word regression model with logged RTs as the dependent variable (with the no-context condition as the reference category).
| FIXED EFFECTS | ß (SE) | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.5070 (0.1409) | 17.794 | <0.001*** |
| Fig. biasing context (FBC) | 0.0035 (0.0086) | 0.403 | 0.687 |
| Lit. biasing context (LBC) | 0.0031 (0.0086) | 0.360 | 0.719 |
| Linguistic knowledge | –0.0400 (0.0244) | –1.638 | 0.111 |
| FBC × Ling. knowledge | 0.0002 (0.0107) | 0.023 | 0.982 |
| LBC × Ling. knowledge | 0.0097 (0.0107) | 0.908 | 0.364 |
| Visual working memory (WM) | –0.0321 (0.0235) | –1.364 | 0.182 |
| FBC × Visual WM | 0.0002 (0.0104) | 0.016 | 0.987 |
| LBC × Visual WM | 0.0124 (0.0103) | 1.203 | 0.229 |
| Processing speed | 0.0248 (0.0226) | 1.098 | 0.280 |
| FBC × Processing speed | –0.0013 (0.0097) | –0.138 | 0.890 |
| LBC × Processing speed | –0.0101 (0.0097) | –1.044 | 0.297 |
| Non-verbal IQ | 0.0525 (0.0285) | 1.840 | 0.075. |
| FBC × Non-verbal IQ | 0.0015 (0.0126) | 0.117 | 0.907 |
| LBC × Non-verbal IQ | 0.0035 (0.0126) | 0.274 | 0.784 |
| Word reading | –0.0591 (0.0215) | –2.746 | 0.010** |
| FBC × Word reading | –0.0027 (0.0095) | –0.281 | 0.779 |
| LBC × Word reading | –0.0048 (0.0095) | –0.501 | 0.617 |
| Sentence compr. & pred. (SPC) | –0.0179 (0.0238) | –0.754 | 0.456 |
| FBC × SPC | –0.0040 (0.0103) | –0.390 | 0.697 |
| LBC × SPC | 0.0003 (0.0103) | 0.025 | 0.980 |
| Idiom transparency | –0.0166 (0.0110) | –1.508 | 0.147 |
| Spill-over word frequency | 0.0019 (0.0246) | 0.077 | 0.939 |
| Spill-over word length | 0.0105 (0.0071) | 1.492 | 0.151 |
| RANDOM EFFECTS | VARIANCE | SD | |
| Participant | 0.0154 | 0.124 | |
| Item | 0.0025 | 0.050 | |
| Residual | 0.0121 | 0.110 | |