Boon or Burden? The Role of Compositional Meaning in Figurative Language Processing and Acquisition

Abstract

We critically address current theories of figurative language, focusing on the role of literal or compositional meaning in the interpretation of non-literal expressions, including idioms and metaphors. Specifically, we formulate and discuss the processing hypothesis that compositional meaning may either facilitate or impede the recovery or construction of the intended figurative meaning depending on multiple factors, and in particular, on the expression's decomposability and on the "strength" of semantic relations between the compositional and figurative meanings. As a case study, we consider research on processing and acquisition of figurative expressions in highly verbal individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in comparison to neuro-typical individuals, and examine the factors that may account for the observed comprehension deficits in the ASD group. Based on this evidence, we discuss some of the strategies employed by language users in processing non-compositional or non-literal expressions, and we highlight implications for research on natural language comprehension and processing systems in the domain of figurative meaning.

Gaze and Motor Traces of Language Processing: Evidence from Autism Spectrum Disorders in Comparison to Typical Controls

“…Our main interest focused on the subtle online stages in processing up to making a response, and whether participants considered the literal interpretation of the figurative expression as a first or even parallel stage when providing the target response. Consistent with current models of figurative language processing, we were also interested in the extent to which degree of decomposability of the expression affected processing strategies (Vulchanova et al, 2019). The results confirmed our main hypotheses.…”

“…This finding is further supported by observational data from the mouse peak velocity plots showing greater and more sustained peaks in velocity in the two child groups, but not in the adult groups. This is novel evidence in support of the idea that decomposability does not always confer advantages in figurative language processing, and its impact on comprehension depends on other factors, such as, for example, degree of semantic relatedness between the literal and the figurative meaning, as well as the frequency of constituent words (Milburn, 2018;Vulchanova et al, 2019).…”

“…It can also be conceived as degree of semantic relatedness between the literal and the figurative meanings: the closer the literal and the figurative interpretations are to each other, the more decomposable the idiom appears to be (Milburn, 2018). Given the range of possible models of idiom processing that have been proposed to account for how language users construct their meaning, it is important to design tasks where factors such as decomposability (transparency) and familiarity are carefully controlled and where figurative expression processing can be captured by measures reflecting the specific stages in constructing the non-literal/figurative interpretation and, specifically, whether and under what conditions accessing the literal meaning is a first stage in idiom processing (see Vulchanova, Milburn, Vulchanov, & Baggio, 2019, for a critical discussion, and Gibbs & Colston, 2012, for a detailed historical overview of figurative language).…”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on metaphor comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Do task properties matter?

“…Reviews that have been conducted focused on ASD and figurative language in general, rather than on metaphor specifically (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012;Kalandadze et al, 2018;Vulchanova, Saldaña, Chahboun, & Vulchanov, 2015). However, the comprehension of metaphor might differ from the comprehension of other figurative language types in several respects (Vulchanova, Milburn, Vulchanov, & Baggio, 2019). For example, the comprehension of irony seems to depend on Theory of Mind (i.e., the ability to attribute one's own mental states and those of others) more than comprehension of a metaphor (Happé, 1993).…”

Idioms in the World: A Focus on Processing

“…Disregarding these principal differences between the two linguistic forms results in their interchangeable use (e.g., Aziz-Zadeh et al, 2006), which, in turn, may posit serious confoundment, as comprehending these figurative devices that have different mental representations engages dissimilar cognitive mechanisms; based on both semantic and structural analysis of meaning and retrieval from semantic memory during idiom processing, and focused on the conceptual models and templates underlying metaphor meaning construction. Vulchanova et al (2019) provide a detailed overview of the models of figurative language processing.…”