scholarly journals Figurative language processing

Author(s):  
Stephanie Huette ◽  
Teenie Matlock
2010 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 1923-1929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanpei Gloria Yang ◽  
Jerome Fuller ◽  
Navid Khodaparast ◽  
Daniel C. Krawczyk

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mila Vulchanova ◽  
Evelyn Milburn ◽  
Valentin Vulchanov ◽  
Giosuè Baggio

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Regel ◽  
Thomas C. Gunter ◽  
Angela D. Friederici

Although the neurocognitive processes underlying the comprehension of figurative language, especially metaphors and idioms, have been studied extensively, less is known about the processing of irony. In two experiments using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), we examined the types of cognitive processes involved in the comprehension of ironic and literal sentences and their relative time course. The experiments varied in modality (auditory, visual), task demands (comprehension task vs. passive reading), and probability of stimulus occurrence. ERPs consistently revealed a large late positivity (i.e., P600 component) in the absence of an N400 component for irony compared to equivalent literal sentences independent of modality. This P600 was shown to be unaffected by the factors task demands and probability of occurrence. Taken together, the findings suggest that the observed P600 is related to irony processing, and might be a reflection of pragmatic interpretation processes. During the comprehension of irony, no semantic integration difficulty arises (absence of N400), but late inferential processes appear to be necessary for understanding ironic meanings (presence of P600). This finding calls for a revision of current models of figurative language processing.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henri Olkoniemi ◽  
Raymond Bertram ◽  
Johanna K. Kaakinen

Very little is known about the processes underlying second language (L2) speakers’ understanding of written metaphors and similes. Most of the theories on figurative language comprehension do not consider reader-related factors. In the study, we used eye-tracking to examine how native Finnish speakers (N = 63) read written English nominal metaphors (“education is a stairway”) and similes (“education is like a stairway”). Identical topic–vehicle pairs were used in both conditions. After reading, participants evaluated familiarity of each pair. English proficiency was measured using the Bilingual-language Profile Questionnaire and the Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. The results showed that readers were more likely to regress within metaphors than within similes, indicating that processing metaphors requires more processing effort than processing similes. The familiarity of a metaphor and L2 English proficiency modulated this effect. The results are discussed in the light of current theories on figurative language processing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document