scholarly journals Do You Have a "Strict Purse"? The Routes to Meaning in Metaphor

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jessie E. Stewart

<p>Theoretically there are two processing systems through which meaning can be found for a given statement: an effortless, associative processing system (meaning retrieval), or an effortful, analytical processing system (meaning construction). The current study investigated whether or not the context in which target (loosely figurative) word-pairs are presented can influence whether a person relies on associative or analytical processing to find their meaning. Participants were presented with target (loosely figurative) novel word-pairs and asked to judge them for meaningfulness. These target novel word-pairs were presented in different contexts: either mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs or with additional novel word-pairs. By nature, meaning cannot be retrieved for novel word-pairs, so if a novel word-pair is to be found "meaningful," then its meaning must usually be constructed online (via the analytical processing system). Consistent with increased reliance on analytical processing, participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with additional novel word-pairs judged them meaningful more often than did participants who saw them mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs. Participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with additional novel word-pairs also had more negative N400s to target novel word-pairs, indicating that they committed more semantic effort to the processing of these (again consistent with analytical processing). Associative processing does not involve attempts to construct new meaning for given word-pairs. Consistent with increased reliance on associative processing, participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs judged them meaningful less often than did participants who saw them mixed with additional novel word-pairs. These participants also had less negative N400s to target novel word-pairs, indicating that they committed less semantic effort to the processing of these (again fitting with associative processing). Further evidence for different contexts leading to differential processing of the same target novel word-pairs was provided by examination of wave morphology. Two distinctive patterns of neural activation were found in response to the same target novel word-pairs, differing depending on the context in which these appeared. Overall, the results of the current study were consistent with the hypothesis that context can influence which processing system is relied upon to find meaning for a given statement. This finding challenges contemporary models of meaning construction and metaphor comprehension by showing that context is essential to these processes and needs to be taken into consideration.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jessie E. Stewart

<p>Theoretically there are two processing systems through which meaning can be found for a given statement: an effortless, associative processing system (meaning retrieval), or an effortful, analytical processing system (meaning construction). The current study investigated whether or not the context in which target (loosely figurative) word-pairs are presented can influence whether a person relies on associative or analytical processing to find their meaning. Participants were presented with target (loosely figurative) novel word-pairs and asked to judge them for meaningfulness. These target novel word-pairs were presented in different contexts: either mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs or with additional novel word-pairs. By nature, meaning cannot be retrieved for novel word-pairs, so if a novel word-pair is to be found "meaningful," then its meaning must usually be constructed online (via the analytical processing system). Consistent with increased reliance on analytical processing, participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with additional novel word-pairs judged them meaningful more often than did participants who saw them mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs. Participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with additional novel word-pairs also had more negative N400s to target novel word-pairs, indicating that they committed more semantic effort to the processing of these (again consistent with analytical processing). Associative processing does not involve attempts to construct new meaning for given word-pairs. Consistent with increased reliance on associative processing, participants who saw target novel word-pairs mixed with clearly meaningful word-pairs judged them meaningful less often than did participants who saw them mixed with additional novel word-pairs. These participants also had less negative N400s to target novel word-pairs, indicating that they committed less semantic effort to the processing of these (again fitting with associative processing). Further evidence for different contexts leading to differential processing of the same target novel word-pairs was provided by examination of wave morphology. Two distinctive patterns of neural activation were found in response to the same target novel word-pairs, differing depending on the context in which these appeared. Overall, the results of the current study were consistent with the hypothesis that context can influence which processing system is relied upon to find meaning for a given statement. This finding challenges contemporary models of meaning construction and metaphor comprehension by showing that context is essential to these processes and needs to be taken into consideration.</p>


Author(s):  
Zhongle Xie ◽  
Hongbin Ying ◽  
Cong Yue ◽  
Meihui Zhang ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
M. Baby Nirmala

In this emerging era of analytics 3.0, where big data is the heart of talk in all sectors, achieving and extracting the full potential from this vast data is accomplished by many vendors through their new generation analytical processing systems. This chapter deals with a brief introduction of the categories of analytical processing system, followed by some prominent analytical platforms, appliances, frameworks, engines, fabrics, solutions, tools, and products of the big data vendors. Finally, it deals with big data analytics in the network, its security, WAN optimization tools, and techniques for cloud-based big data analytics.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Qunyong WU ◽  
Mengxin LIU ◽  
Xijie LI ◽  
Wanghua CAI

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Andrea Sugden

Infants learn and develop immensely in the first year of life. They show substantial learning in their ability to use the information provided by faces. Faces are important stimuli in infants‘ world and infants reliably prefer faces over other visual stimuli (Fantz, 1963). While experience likely plays a role in infants‘ early face processing, little is known about how infants‘ natural exposure to faces shapes attention and learning. We use head-mounted infant-perspective cameras to capture infants‘ natural experience with faces. We also measured infants‘ attentional preference for, ability to discriminate between, and electrical brain response to familiar (i.e., female, own-race) and unfamiliar (i.e., male, other-race) face types. Infants‘ face experience was highly homogenous: their primary caregiver‘s face represents the 57% of infants‘ experience and was present in all locations and nearly all contexts. Infants‘ other caregiver represented only 11% of their face experience, but was also highly consistent across location and context. Infants showed greater visual attention to female faces of familiar race at 3 months, but not later. They showed no race preference at any age. At 3 months, infants discriminated all face types except for male own-race faces. At 6 months, infants discriminated all face types. At 9 months infants discriminated all face types except for male other-race faces. Electrical brain response only differentiated male from female faces at 6 months, not at 3 or 9 months; there was no effect of race at any age. This may be due to the immaturity of the early face processing system or differential processing being indexed at later attentional components. Infants‘ overall face exposure, mom face exposure, and attentional preference for female faces predicted female own-race face discrimination at 3 months, accounting for 62% of the variance. Exposure to male faces correlated with attention to male faces and attention to male faces predicted discrimination of male faces at 3 months, accounting for 11% of the variance. At 6 months dad face exposure predicted discrimination of male faces, accounting for 17% of the variance. Infants‘ early experience, particularly to caregivers‘ faces, tunes infants‘ attention to faces, which in turn predicts discrimination.


Big Data ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 1024-1052
Author(s):  
M. Baby Nirmala

In this emerging era of analytics 3.0, where big data is the heart of talk in all sectors, achieving and extracting the full potential from this vast data is accomplished by many vendors through their new generation analytical processing systems. This chapter deals with a brief introduction of the categories of analytical processing system, followed by some prominent analytical platforms, appliances, frameworks, engines, fabrics, solutions, tools, and products of the big data vendors. Finally, it deals with big data analytics in the network, its security, WAN optimization tools, and techniques for cloud-based big data analytics.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Andrea Sugden

Infants learn and develop immensely in the first year of life. They show substantial learning in their ability to use the information provided by faces. Faces are important stimuli in infants‘ world and infants reliably prefer faces over other visual stimuli (Fantz, 1963). While experience likely plays a role in infants‘ early face processing, little is known about how infants‘ natural exposure to faces shapes attention and learning. We use head-mounted infant-perspective cameras to capture infants‘ natural experience with faces. We also measured infants‘ attentional preference for, ability to discriminate between, and electrical brain response to familiar (i.e., female, own-race) and unfamiliar (i.e., male, other-race) face types. Infants‘ face experience was highly homogenous: their primary caregiver‘s face represents the 57% of infants‘ experience and was present in all locations and nearly all contexts. Infants‘ other caregiver represented only 11% of their face experience, but was also highly consistent across location and context. Infants showed greater visual attention to female faces of familiar race at 3 months, but not later. They showed no race preference at any age. At 3 months, infants discriminated all face types except for male own-race faces. At 6 months, infants discriminated all face types. At 9 months infants discriminated all face types except for male other-race faces. Electrical brain response only differentiated male from female faces at 6 months, not at 3 or 9 months; there was no effect of race at any age. This may be due to the immaturity of the early face processing system or differential processing being indexed at later attentional components. Infants‘ overall face exposure, mom face exposure, and attentional preference for female faces predicted female own-race face discrimination at 3 months, accounting for 62% of the variance. Exposure to male faces correlated with attention to male faces and attention to male faces predicted discrimination of male faces at 3 months, accounting for 11% of the variance. At 6 months dad face exposure predicted discrimination of male faces, accounting for 17% of the variance. Infants‘ early experience, particularly to caregivers‘ faces, tunes infants‘ attention to faces, which in turn predicts discrimination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document