Patalas, Iola (2018) Assessing the Meaning of Metaphors in Real-Time: A Cross-Modal Investigation. Masters thesis, Concordia University.
Preview |
Text (application/pdf)
280kBPatalas_MA_F2018.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
Abstract
Natural language is replete with figurative expressions such as "my lawyer is a shark," and listeners are expected to intuitively understand the intended, rather than the literal meaning of such expressions. But what are the cognitive resources involved in attaining meaning for such sentences? According to proponents of the pragmatic model of metaphor comprehension, metaphors are first interpreted literally, and then, upon realizing they cannot be true, listeners search for implicatures that could convey the speaker’s intended meaning (Searle, 1979; Grice, 1989). In contrast, direct-access models of metaphor processing have posited that metaphors can be understood directly, circumventing higher-order cognitive processes (e.g. Glucksberg & Keysar, 1990). The present thesis investigated these theories using a cross-modal lexical decision paradigm (Swinney, 1979) with a novel brief masked target presentation at two probe points, in order to assess the moment-by-moment on-line processes involved in metaphor comprehension. We predicted that, following the pragmatic model, literally related target words would yield greater priming effects at the vehicle (e.g., shark) recognition point (a), compared to figurative targets, in both metaphor and simile conditions. At the later probe point (b), 500 ms after the vehicle’s recognition point, we expected that figurative targets would yield greater priming effects during metaphor comprehension as literal meanings were discarded. Results obtained from a preliminary sample demonstrated priming of related target words across conditions, but no significant differences between conditions. We discuss how these results may best be interpreted as supporting the dual-processing account of metaphor interpretation put forth by Carston (2010), which suggests that metaphors are held in the mind as literally true even as fast ad-hoc concepts are simultaneously created to interpret intended speaker meaning.
| Divisions: | Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Psychology |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Thesis (Masters) |
| Authors: | Patalas, Iola |
| Institution: | Concordia University |
| Degree Name: | M.A. |
| Program: | Psychology |
| Date: | July 2018 |
| Thesis Supervisor(s): | de Almeida, Roberto and Patalas, Iola |
| ID Code: | 984327 |
| Deposited By: | IOLA KAY PATALAS |
| Deposited On: | 16 Nov 2018 15:28 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Nov 2018 15:28 |
References:
Aristotle. (1926). The art of rhetoric. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Ashby, J., Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., & Agauas, S. J. (2018). The early processing of metaphors and similes: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 161-168.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19(2), 295-308.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological review, 112(1), 193-216. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Carston, R. (2010). XIII—Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), 110(3pt3), 295-321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J.M. and Chiappe, P. (2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in predicting recognition bias and preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51-68.
Columbus, G., Sheikh, N., Cote-Lecaldare, M., Häuser, K., Baum, S. R., & Titone, D. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An eye movement study of sentence reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 31-47.
de Almeida, R. G., & Lepore, E. (2018). Semantics for a Module. In de Almeida, R. G. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), On Concepts, Modules, and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
de Almeida, R., Manouilidou, C., Roncero, C., & Riven, L. (2010). Three tales of semantic decomposition: Causatives, Coercion, and Metaphors. In França, A. & Maia, M. (Eds.), Papers in Psycholinguistics (pp. 172-190).
Forster, K. I. (1999). The Microgenesis of Priming Effects in Lexical Access. Brain and Language, 68(1), 5-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2078
Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., P Shapiro, L., & Swinney, D. (2008). The Leaf Fell (the Leaf): The Online Processing of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(3), 355-377. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355 ·
Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends Cogn Sci, 7(2), 92-96.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & B. Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85-98.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558-567.
Janus, R., & Bever, T. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(5), 473-487.
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 375-385.
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145-155. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088
LePore, E., Stone, M (2015). Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in language. UPSO eCollections (University Press Scholarship Online).
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1171. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
Ortony, A., Schallert, D., Reynolds, R., & J. Antos, S. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465-477.
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F.-H., & Poli, J. (1996). The Time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55(3), 293-316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0107
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Roncero, C., & de Almeida, R. G. (2015). Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 800-812. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0502-y
Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., Martin, D. C., & de Caro, M. (2016). Aptness predicts metaphor preference in the lab and on the internet. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(1), 31-46. doi:10.1080/10926488.2016.1116908
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 83-111). Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
Tirrell, L. (1989). Extending: The Structure of Metaphor. Noûs, 23(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215827
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 26(2), 529-541.
Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32(1), 25-64.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
Download Statistics
Download Statistics