Abstract
This paper examines the abilities of a group of individuals with and without brain damage to process idioms. The investigation consisted of a survey and a specially devised assessment. Ten idioms were selected from the survey, five of which could be interpreted in both a literal and a non-literal sense; the other five could only be interpreted in a non-literal sense. The assessment consisted of definition, multiple-choice, and collocation tasks. Both brain damaged and non-brain damaged groups experienced difficulties with some of the tasks. All subjects were most accurate on the collocation task, followed by the multiple-choice task, and then followed by the definition task. Both found it significantly easier to process the idioms that could only be interpreted in a non-literal sense. This suggests a possibility that these types of idioms carry a lighter cognitive load, because there is no question as to whether the intended meaning is literal or non-literal. The implications of these findings for clinical practice are discussed.