Patalas, Iola (2024) Is a Job (Like) a Jail? Differences in Metaphor Versus Simile Processing and Comprehension in L1 and L2 English Speakers. PhD thesis, Concordia University.
Preview |
Text (application/pdf)
1MBPatalas_PhD_F2024.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
Abstract
When listeners hear a metaphor such as jobs are jails, they typically understand the intended meaning even though such sentences are not literally true. Within psycholinguistics, there has been a lingering debate over how such phrases are understood, and how they differ from other related forms, such as similes (e.g., jobs are like jails). Accordingly, pragmatic theorists suggest that literal meaning of metaphors must first be rejected in order to attain understanding of intended metaphorical meaning from context and world knowledge. In contrast, direct-access theorists argue that both metaphor and simile are understood automatically, without prior parsing of literal semantic meaning. Relevant here, relatively little research has ascertained what meanings are attained during the time-course of metaphor or simile processing, and further, how this differs between first and second language speakers (henceforth, L1 and L2, respectively). To pursue this issue, this thesis presents three studies that investigate both the moment-by-moment online processing of metaphors and similes and their ultimate comprehensibility, in both L1 and L2 English speakers. STUDY 1 describes two cross-modal lexical decision experiments spanning four time points during the course of processing (vehicle word onset, vehicle recognition point, 500ms and 1000ms post-recognition point) in two samples of L1 English speakers, comparing the priming of literal and figurative meanings of metaphors and similes in high- and low- aptness and familiarity conditions. It showed that aptness and familiarity modulated which meanings were activated during metaphor and simile processing, and that literal meanings were activated faster and lingered later than figurative meanings. STUDY 2 repeated the same experimental design in a sample of L2 English speakers, with four time points collapsed into two (early and late) to determine whether L2 speakers process metaphors the same way L1 speakers do. We demonstrated that L2 speakers did not appreciably prime figurative or literal meanings during online processing of metaphors, and only primed literal meanings while processing similes. STUDY 3 probed whether L1 and L2 speakers found metaphors and similes globally comprehensible when aptness and familiarity were manipulated and when given ample time to make offline judgments about these sentences. It found that L1 speakers judged highly familiar metaphor more comprehensible than similes that had the same constituents. However, L2 speakers preferred simile when sentence familiarity was high or aptness was low. Together, STUDIES 1 to 3 highlight that online processing and offline comprehension of metaphor and simile differed according to language background and sentence attributes. Specifically, familiarity was important for both online processing of metaphor and simile for L1 speakers. In contrast, L2 speakers relied more heavily on semantic decomposability to make sense of figurative expressions.
| Divisions: | Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Psychology |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Thesis (PhD) |
| Authors: | Patalas, Iola |
| Institution: | Concordia University |
| Degree Name: | Ph. D. |
| Program: | Psychology |
| Date: | 1 May 2024 |
| Thesis Supervisor(s): | Titone, Debra |
| ID Code: | 994063 |
| Deposited By: | IOLA KAY PATALAS |
| Deposited On: | 24 Oct 2024 19:03 |
| Last Modified: | 24 Oct 2024 19:03 |
References:
Al-Azary, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2021). Flute birds and creamy skies: The metaphor interference effect in modifier–noun phrases. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000251Al-Azary, H., & Katz, A. N. (2021). Do metaphorical sharks bite? Simulation and abstraction in metaphor processing. Memory & Cognition, 49, 557-570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01109-2
Aristotle. (trans. 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 meta-phors and similes: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1278456
Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from context: An ERP study. Front. Psychol., 7, 559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirma-tory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models us-ing lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Blasko, D. G., & Briihl, D. S. (1997). Reading and recall of metaphorical sentences: Effects of familiarity and context. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(4), 261-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_4
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor pro-cessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19(2), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological review, 112(1), 193-216. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000795
Carston, R. (2010). XIII—Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3pt3), 295-321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x
Casasanto, D. (2014). Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 249-268). American Psychological Association, viii, 301 pp.
Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2013). Spatial language and abstract concepts. WIREs Cognitive Science, 5(2), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1271
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668-676.
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2009). Reversibility, aptness, and the conven-tionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(2), 85-105. doi:10.1207/S15327868MS1802_2
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Mac-intosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 25(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204507
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2021). Figurative language communicates directly because it precisely demonstrates what we mean. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000254
Columbus G., Sheikh, N. A., Côté-Lecaldaire, M., Häuser, K., Baum, S. R., & Titone, D. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An eye move-ment study of sentence reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01057
Coulehan, J. (2003). Metaphor and medicine: Narrative in clinical practice. Yale Journal of Biolo-gy and Medicine, 76(2), 87-95.
Damerall, A. W., & Kellogg, R. T. (2016). Familiarity and aptness in metaphor comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.1.0049
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 31-47.
Davies, M. (2008-) Word frequency data. [Data set]. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.wordfrequency.info.
de Almeida, R. G. (2001). Conceptual deficits without features: A view from atomism. Behav-ioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 482-483. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01284155
de Almeida, R. G., & Antal, C. (2021). How can semantics avoid the troubles with the analyt-ic/synthetic distinction? In S. Löbner, T. Gamerschag, T. Kalenscher, M. Schrenk, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Concepts, frames and cascades in semantics, cognition and ontology (pp. 103-120). Springer Open Access.
de Almeida, R. G., & Lepore, E. (2018). Semantics for a Module. In de Almeida, R. G. & Gleit-man, L. R. (Eds.), On Concepts, modules, and language. New York: Oxford
Declercq, J., & van Poppel, L. (2024). Metaphors in interaction: Reusing, developing and resisting metaphors of illness, the body and medical treatment in chronic pain consultations. Journal of Pragmatics, 221, 168-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.001.
Durgin, F. H., & Gelpi, R. A. (2017). When do vehicles of similes become figurative? Gaze pat-terns show that similes and metaphors are initially processed differently. CogSci 2017: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 1967-1972.
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1-2), 3–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5
Forster, K. I. (1999). The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access. Brain and Language, 68(1-2), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2078
Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L. P., & Swinney, D. (2008). The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguist Inq. 39(3), 355-377. doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355
Fuks, A. (2021). The Language of Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similari-ty. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends Cogn Sci, 7(2), 92-96. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2
Glucksberg, S., & Estes, Z. (2000). Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 510-515. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214364
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Seman-tics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204386
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehen-sion. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558-567. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213344
Jankowiak, K., Naranowicz, M., & Rataj, K. (2021). Metaphors are like lenses: Electrophysiolog-ical correlates of novel meaning processing in bilingualism. International Journal of Bilin-gualism, 25(3), 668-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006921996820
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., & Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PLoS ONE 12(4): e017578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175578
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.
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
Katz, A. N. (2024). Selective view of the last 50 years of the experimental psycholinguistics of idiom, metaphor, and irony: A commentary. Discourse Processes, 61(1-2), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2024.2319898
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 173-202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2502_1
Kumar, A., Steyvers, M., & Balota, D. A. (2021). A critical review of network-based and distri-butional approaches to semantic memory structure and processes. Topics in Cognitive Sci-ence, 14(12), 54-77. doi: 10.1111/tops.12548
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2014). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life. American Psychological Association.
Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphori-cal effects: The embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029708
Libben, M., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103-1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1103
Littlemore, J. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294. doi:10.1093/applin/aml004
Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr009
Maass, A., Suitner, C., & Acuri, L. (2014). The role of metaphors in intergroup relations. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its in-fluence on social life (pp. 153-177). American Psychological Association, viii, 301 pp. https://doi.org/10.1037/14278-008
Meier, B. P, Scholer, A. A., & Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2014). Conceptual metaphor theory and person perception. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 43-64). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14278-003
Milburn, E., Vulchanova, M., & Vulchanov, V. (2021). Collocational frequency and context effects on idiom processing in advanced L2 speakers. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000214f3kRB
Munday, I., Kneebone, I., Rogers, K., & Newton-John, T. (2022). The language of pain: Is there a relationship between metaphor use and adjustment to chronic pain? Pain Medicine, 23(12), 2073-2084. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaa467
Olkoniemi, H., Bertram, R., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2022). Knowledge is a river and education is like a stairway: An eye movement study on how L2 speakers process metaphors and similes. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(2), 307-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000869
Ottatti, V., Renstrom, R., & Price, E. (2014). The metaphorical framing model: Political commu-nication and public opinion. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 179-202). American Psy-chological Association, viii, 301 pp.
Pambuccian, F. S., & Raney, G. E. (2021). A simile is (like) a metaphor: Comparing metaphor and simile processing across the familiarity spectrum. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000242
Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and cognition. Neural Networks, 22(3), 247-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.03.007
Roncero, C., & de Almeida, R. G. (2014). The importance of being apt: Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 973.
Roncero, C., & de Almeida, R. G. (2015). Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventional-ity, 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1116908
Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., Pissani, L. & Patalas, I. (2021). A metaphor is not like a simile: Reading-time evidence for distinct interpretations for negated tropes. Metaphor & Sym-bol, 36(2), 85-98. doi:10.1080/10926488.2021.1882258
Schnall, S. (2014). Are there basic metaphors? In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 225-247). American Psychological Association, viii, 301 pp.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 83-111). Cambridge University Press.
Senaldi, M. S. G., Titone, D.A. (2022) Less direct, more analytical: Eye-movement measures of L2 idiom reading. Languages, 7(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020091
Senaldi, M. S. G., Wei, J., Gullifer, J.W., & Titone, D. (2022). Scratching your tête over lan-guage-switched idioms: Evidence from eye-movement measures of reading. Memory & Cognition, 50, 1230-1256. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01334-x
Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2014). Do evaluative metaphors shape emotional thought? A call for new evidence. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 205-223). American Psychological Association.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 84-105). Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of meta-phor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213-241.
Taki, S. (2011). Cross-cultural communication and metaphorical competence. International Journal of Language Studies, 5(1), 47-62.
Tang, X., Shen, L., Yang, P., Huang, Y., Huang, S., Huang, M., & Ren, W. (2022). Bilingual processing mechanisms of scientific metaphors and conventional metaphors: Evidence via a Contrastive Event-Related Potentials study. Sec. Psychology of Language, 13. doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894114
Thibodeau, P. H., & Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196
Tianshu, Z., & Minda, J. P. (2021). An investigation of idiom processing advantage using translated familiar idioms. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000245
Tirrell, L. (1989). Extending: The structure of metaphor. Noûs, 23(1), 17-34. doi:10.2307/2215827
Titone, D. A., & Libben, M. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom priming: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lex-icon, 9(3), 473-496. doi:10.1075/ml.9.3.05tit
Tiv, M., Deodato, F., Rouillard, V., Wiebe, S., & Titone, D. (2021). Second language experience impacts first language irony comprehension among bilingual adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000230
Utsumi, A., & Sakamoto, M. (2011). Indirect categorization as a process of predicative metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.609120
Wackers, D. Y. M, Plug, H. J., & Steen, G. J. (2021). “For crying out loud, don’t call me a warrior”: Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, 174, 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.021
Warren, P., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1987). Continuous uptake of acoustic cues in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 41(3), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208224
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., & Kohl, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447-467. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4002
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 26(2), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.529
Zhu, T., & Minda, J. P. (2021). An investigation of idiom processing advantage using translated familiar idioms. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75(2), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000245
Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32(1), 25-64. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90013-9
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
Download Statistics
Download Statistics