Document Type : Research
Authors
1 department of English language and literature, faculty of literature and humanities, university of sistan and baluchistan
2 Department of English Language and Literature, Sistan and Balouchestan University, Zahedan, Iran
3 Tehran University of Medical Science, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Al-Zahra University
Abstract
There are three primary models to deal with literal/non-literal language processing. The first is the indirect access model proposed by Grice (1975) and Searle (1979). As indicated by this model, sentences are first processed literally when the literal meaning was not the adequate interpretation; at that point the look for the metaphorical interpretation begins. The second is the direct access model proposed by Glucksberg et al. (1982). As indicated by this model, metaphors are processed as easily as literal sentences. Their findings demonstrated that there is no contrast between the processing of literal sentences and metaphor. The third is a continual processing model, for example, “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, Lakoff (1993); “the Gradient Salience Model”, Giora (1997, 2003) and “the Career of Metaphor Model”, Bowdel and Gentner (2005). In these models, literal sentences and conventional metaphors are processed in the same way. Lakoff (1993) believes that the meaning of literal sentences and conventional metaphors are accessed at the same time since they both are retrieved from memory. But Giora (1997, 2003) believes that the reason for this simultaneous processing is that conventional metaphors are as salient as literal sentences. Novel metaphors are processed more slowly than literal sentences and conventional metaphors. Their processing includes more cognitive efforts. Lakoff (1993) asserts that this slower processing of novel metaphors is due to the comparison and the conceptual mapping of the source domain on the target domain (online processing compared with retrieving from memory). Bowdel and Gentner (2005) believe that novel metaphors are processed as “analogy”, but conventional metaphors are processed as “categorization”. However, Giora (1997, 2003) considers the non-saliency as the main cause of this slower processing.
Behavioral researches have mainly focused on the reaction time of subjects during the processing of metaphors. The improvement of brain imaging technologies in recent decades has motivated researchers to use techniques such as ERP, PET, and fMRI, to study the processing of non-literal language including metaphors. Kutas, Federmeyer, Coulson, King, and Munte (2000) state that techniques with high temporal resolution, for example, ERPs and eye tracking, can help revealing how language processing unfolds over time. They can be used to track the availability of different sorts of linguistic information and the temporal course of their interactions. Since 1980, many researches, including Pynte, Besson, Robichon and Poli (1996), Tarrter, Gomes, Dubrovsky, Molholm, and Stewart (2002), Coulson, and van Petten (2002), Iakimova, Passerieux, Laurent and Hardy-Bayle (2005), Arzoan, Goldstein, and Faust (2007), Lai, Menn, and Curran (2009), Lai and Curran (2013) have used ERP and N400 to study metaphor processing.
This research, using Event-Related Potential technique, studies the processing of literal and metaphorical sentences in Farsi and the role of conceptual mapping in this process. We anticipate literal sentences and conventional metaphors to be processed at a similar speed, but conventional metaphors are processed quicker than novel metaphors. In other words, more cognitive effort happen during the processing of novel metaphors. We also expect that conceptual mapping to occur during the conventional and novel metaphors in different ways. Four hundred sentences (literal, conventional metaphor, novel metaphor and anomalous) were made, then these sentences were designed by Psycopy software to be displayed on the computer screen. The brain electrical signals of 22 participants, were recorded during the reading task by a 64 channels EEG set made by Ant company and ASA lab software. The sample rate was 512 Hz, and the electrodes were arranged based on the 10-20 system. The signals were recorded from 32 electrodes. Using EEGLAB and ERPLAB, the mean amplitude of N400 in 7 areas including midline channels (Fpz, Fz, Cz, Pz, Oz), left medial channels (FC1, CP1, C3), right medial channels (CP2, C4, FC2), left lateral channels (CP5, F3, P3, FC5), right lateral channels (CP6, P4, F4, FC6), left peripheral channels (Fp1, F7, T7, O1) and right peripheral channels (Fp2, F8, T8, O2) were extracted. The data were analyzed by repeated measure (ANOVA) and pair-wise comparison (SPSS).
The repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) showed that mean amplitude of four conditions: literal, conventional metaphors, novel metaphors and anomalous sentences in the midline, left and right medial and right peripheral were significantly different. Pair-wise comparison of the amplitude of 400 in 7 areas did not show any significant differences between literal sentences and conventional metaphors, but the pair-wise comparison of the mean amplitude of N400 in left medial channels showed a significant difference between conventional metaphors and novel metaphors processing. The Findings of this research showed that the processing of literal language and conventional metaphors take the same speed and cognitive effort. However, the processing of novel metaphors need more cognitive efforts, which can be considered as an evidence of conceptual mapping. Our findings are consistent with this premise that conceptual mapping in novel metaphors occurs through analogy and in conventional metaphors it happens through categorization.
Keywords
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 36, 222-231.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295-308.
Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Revision, 112, 193-216.
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958-968.
Ditman, T., Holcomb, J. P., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). An investigation of concurrent ERP and self‐paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology, 44(6), 927-935.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related potential effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219-1248.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: salience, context, and figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguist, 8, 183-206.
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories quickly. In R. W. Gibbs, (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 67-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding non-literal speech: can people ignore metaphors. Journal of Verbal Learn Verbal BE, 21, 85-98.
Golshaie, R., & Golfam, A. (2015). Processing conventional conceptual metaphors in Persian: a corpus-based psycholinguistic study, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(5), 495-518. doi.10.1007/s 10936-014-9299-1.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
Holcomb, P. J., Coffey, S. A., & Neville, H. J. (1992). Visual and auditory sentence processing: a developmental analysis using event-related brain potentials. Developmental Neuropsychology, 8, 203-241.
Iakimova, G., Passerieux, C., Laurent, J. P., & Hardy-Bayle, M. C. (2005). ERPs of metaphoric, literal, and incongruous semantic processing in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology, 42, 380-390.
Ingram, J. (2007). Neurolinguistics: an introduction to spoken language processing and its disorders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, A. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similes: a reaction time study, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2), 145-159.
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15,159-201.
Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 576–593.
Khaleghi, M. R., Keikhaie, Y., Tehrani doost, M. & Golshaie, R. (in press). Conventional and novel metaphor processing: a reaction time study, Journal of Advances in Cognitive Sciences [In Persian].
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 463-470.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145-155.
Lai, V., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127, 484-496.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 203-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
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, 293-316.
Raghibdoost Sh., & Mehrabi, M. (2010). Sentence processing and the mental representation of Persian verbs. Zabanpazhuhi, 1(2), 1-24 [In Persian].
Safavi, M. (2012). Structural and semantic processing of Persian idioms: a study based on ERPs (Master’s thesis), Allameh Tabatabaie University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92-123). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., & Stewart, R. V. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: evidence from N400. Brain and Language, 80, 488-509.
', './data/jlr/coversheet/641598857186.jpg'))