First of all, the interaction of age and the types of interpretations (literal vs. metaphorical)
were significantly different among the six groups and there were significant within- and between-group differences found in the 2 results. According to between-group comparisons
of performances, the findings of the present study support the universal principle in Eckman's (1977) Markedness Differential Hypothesis, which states that relative degree of difficulty correlates with the concept of the markedness. The marked form in one language is relatively more difficult than the unmarked form. In the present study, the literal meaning is regarded as the unmarked form whereas the metaphorical meaning should be the marked one.
The Markedness Hypothesis describes the order of language development. Children should have better interpretation of literal meanings first. As they grow older, they gradually correctly interpret idiomatic meanings of figurative expressions. This results from the fact that children’s development of Figurative Competence (Pollio and Pollio 1974) takes time to form.
This competence is composed of a series of abilities2 proposed in Levorato & Cacciari (1995).
In addition, the Global Elaboration Model in Table 4-11 first raised in Levorato & Cacciari (2002) proposes the five developmental phases that are crucial in the acquisition of figurative language:
Table 4-11 The Five Developmental Phases in the GEM3
(Levorato and Cacciari 2002:129-130) (same as Table 1-1) Prevalent
Age Phase Description of figurative language 0-7 Phase
1
A primitive type of processing is carried out in the composition of piece-by-piece elaboration of the linguistic input. Children process language literally even when it does not make sense in the linguistic context.
8-9 Phase 2
Children start searching for the clues which could lead to a non-literal interpretation of the linguistic input. An acquired sensitivity toward the contextual information leads children from eight to nine years old to activate the world knowledge necessary to recover a meaning which might differ from the literal one. During this phase they realize that a discrepancy between what is said and what is expected on the basis of context should not always be interpreted as a communicative error.
10-12 Phase 3
The child acquires the knowledge that the same communicative intention can be realized through different sentence forms (literally, idiomatically, metaphorically, and so forth). The internal state of speakers can also be taken into consideration.
15 Phase 4
The ability to use the conventional repertoire of figurative expressions is achieved in this stage. The developmental gap between the ability to comprehend and to produce figurative expressions, still present; however, it is progressively reduced, particularly as far as idiomatic expressions are concerned.
2 These include “the ability to understand the dominant, peripheral and the additional related meanings of a word,...the ability to go beyond a purely literal-referential strategy,...the ability to use contextual information,...[and] the awareness that there are strongly held conventions according to which what is said and what is meant do not always coincide” (Levorato & Cacciari 1995: 263-264).
3
Adult-like Phase 5
The adult-like figurative competence is reached. The figurative language can be used in a creative way. Based on the awareness of meta-linguistic and metasemantic, the most mature acquisition is reached.
From the distribution of metaphorical frequency among the six groups, we can begin to
analyze how the five developmental patterns in the GEM come into play (Levorato and Cacciari 2002). Phase 1 corresponds to G1 and G2. As expected, as the group
with the highest percentage of literal interpretations (48.06%), G1 was more inclined to interpret idiomatic expressions in their literal forms. Preschoolers and second graders in this phase mainly depended on the literal meaning when attempting to interpret idiomatic phrases.
For example, G1 would interpret the tested idiom chou-lian ‘in an unhappy mood’ as his/her face smelling badly. Intuitionally, they correlated the core meaning of chou as the only clue to
interpret the chou-related idioms designed into the tasks. In addition, it is also essential to pay attention to G1’s percentage (25.83%) for the other category (‘I don't know’). The frequency
count for this category ranked second among the four categories. Besides the literal meaning, it is highly possible that the preschool children in G1 responded with ‘I don’t know.’
As for G2, this group significantly outperformed G1. They had the most comparable frequency counts between literal (n = 124) and metaphorical (n = 118) types within the two tasks. Based on the metaphorical frequency in G2, it seems that the second graders already had the ability to comprehend chou-related idioms. However, this was not the case; the collected data shows that G2 displayed progressive improvement that was limited to the Word-in-Context
task, so most of the metaphorical responses were from this task design only. As proposed in Levorato & Cacciari (1995), an experimental participant gradually developing Figurative Competence would be able to comprehend figurative expressions by means of a sufficient context, and this was supported by G2's marked improvement in the Word-in-Context task.
Phase 2 in the GEM, composed of children aged eight to nine, was represented by G3 in
the present study. Previous empirical research has pointed out that by the age of 10, children begin to go beyond a phrase’s literal meaning and are able to comprehend its idiomatic meaning
(Prinz 1983, Gibbs 1987, Kempler et al. 1999, Levorato & Cacciari 2002, Nippold 2004, Hsieh 2008, Vulchanova, Vulchanov & Stankova 2011, Hsu 2013). G3 in the present study displayed this same trend, as they were more likely to comprehend non-literal meanings of chou-related idiomatic expressions as evidenced by the group's relatively higher frequency of metaphorical responses (n = 76) than G1 (n = 10) and G2 (n = 25) in the Word-in-Isolation task. Based on the GEM, children around this age notice the discrepancy between what is said and what is expected (Levorato & Cacciari 1995).
G4 (the sixth-grader group) then, seems to fit neatly into Phase 3. Children at Phase 3 will take a speaker’s mood or situation into account when attempting to interpret an idiomatic phrase. For example, regarding G4’s interpretation of chou-ma ‘badly scold’ in the Word-in-Context task, some of its participants would interpret it as ‘scolding someone to the point that they felt they had the wronged the speaker.’ In this way, the participants display the ability to
take the speaker’s internal state into consideration. Also, G4 performed significantly better than
G1, G2 and G3 (p = .000, p = .000, p < .05). In fact, the group's performance was comparable to G5’s, but the frequency count for metaphorical interpretations in G4 was still less than in the
older group.
As the mean age of the participants in G5 was 15 years old, this group was considered to be at Phase 4. Children at this phase are capable of using the conventional meaning of another, related idiomatic expression to interpret chou-related idioms in this study. For instance, regarding the interpretation of ru-chou-wei-gan ‘wet behind the ears,’ one of G5's participants produced a separate quadra-syllabic idiom, she-shi-wei-shen ‘naïve and inexperienced,’ to
interpret the original idiomatic expression. The use of this second idiomatic expression to describe the first stood as a clear sign of this group’s ability to make use of their conventional
repertoire of figurative expressions when interpreting new idiomatic expressions, a key feature of the GEM’s Phase 4. Similar to G4, G5 significantly outperformed G1, G2 and G3 (p = .000, p = .000, p = .000). G5’s performance was close to the control group’s; nonetheless, there was
still a developmental gap to be observed since the adult controls’ overall metaphorical
frequency count (n= 289) was more than G5’s (n=269).
Compared to the five experimental groups’ metaphorical frequency counts, it is
undoubtedly clear that the adult control group performed the best. They indeed achieved the ability to creatively and accurately interpret chou-related idioms. In particular, they were very
detailed in their responses, for instance providing at least three synonyms such as jiao-ao, chui-niu, or shen-qi describing chou-pi ‘boastful’ in their interpretations of that phrase, or when
interpreting ru-chou-wei-gan, providing two separate idioms in mei-jian-guo-shi-mian-er-da-fang-jue-ci ‘spouting a stream of nonsense with no real-world experience to support it.’
In general, the six groups’ interpretations of chou-related idiomatic expressions basically
support the GEM. In Figure 4-3, a six developmental model is proposed in the acquisition of chou-related idiomatic expressions:
Figure 4-3 Six Developmental Stages in Chinese Acquisition of Chou-related Idioms
The present study has designed both types of idioms (quadra- and non-quadra- syllabic idioms), familiarity, and context into the experimental tasks. Based on the experimental results, it was found that there was developmental progress in the acquisition of chou-related idiomatic expressions. The youngest group (G1), which was considered to be at Stage 1, only depended on the literal meaning of chou when interpreting the idiomatic expressions. The familiarity and contextual effects also came into play at this stage. That is to say, the preschoolers in this group performed better on familiar non-quadra-syllabic idioms with the aid of context. At Stage 2, the second graders (G2) started to both literally and metaphorically interpret chou-related idioms. As in Stage 1, G2 was found to be influenced by familiarity and context and they tended to metaphorically interpret familiar non-quadra-syllabic idioms. However, G2 significantly outperformed G1 on the matter of metaphorical interpretation.
As for Stage 3, the fourth graders preferred to metaphorically interpret chou-related idiomatic expressions and familiarity again played a role affecting their comprehension. It was found that they performed better on familiar idioms than on unfamiliar idioms. In addition, the contextual effect was also evident here, as they did show remarkable improvement on the Word-in-Context task. Next, at Stage 4, the six graders were able to metaphorically interpret chou-related idioms in the Word-in-Isolation task. In contrast to the earlier three stages, the
children at Stage 4 did not show signs of being influenced by the familiarity or contextual effects. They showed the ability to metaphorically interpret familiar non-quadra- and quadra-
syllabic idiomatic expressions and unfamiliar quadra-syllabic idioms. Concerning Stage 5, the ninth graders (G5) had the capacity to metaphorically interpret chou-related idioms even without the contextual effect in play. It also seemed that they were not affected by the familiarity of idioms, so they could therefore interpret familiar non-quadra- and quadra- syllabic phrases, as well as unfamiliar quadra- and non-quadra- syllabic phrases equally well.
The same situation presents itself at Stage 6, where the adult control displayed even better interpretation of chou-related idiomatic expressions in the above contexts. The characteristics of this stage were similar to those of Stage 5, and differed only in that the participants displayed an overall better grasp of metaphorical interpretation.