Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study

Abstract

The neural mechanisms underlying the processing of conventional and novel conceptual metaphorical sentences were examined with event-related potentials (ERPs). Conventional metaphors were created based on the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor and were operationally defined as familiar and readily interpretable. Novel metaphors were unfamiliar and harder to interpret. Using a sensicality judgment task, we compared ERPs elicited by the same target word when it was used to end anomalous, novel metaphorical, conventional metaphorical and literal sentences. Amplitudes of the N400 ERP component (320-440 ms) were more negative for anomalous sentences, novel metaphors, and conventional metaphors compared with literal sentences. Within a later window (440-560 ms), ERPs associated with conventional metaphors converged to the same level as literal sentences while the novel metaphors stayed anomalous throughout. The reported results were compatible with models assuming an initial stage for metaphor mappings from one concept to another and that these mappings are cognitively taxing.

Brain processing of visual metaphors: An electrophysiological study

“…Other experiments replicate these results (cf. (De Grauwe, Swain, Holcomb, Ditman, & Kuperberg, 2010;Lai, Curran, & Menn, 2009;Schneider et al, 2014;Tartter, Gomes, Dubrovsk, & Molholm, 2002) so this graded N400 metaphor effect seems to be further confirmed.…”

Event-related potentials indicate context effect in reading ambiguous words

“…Several authors also used the ERP technique to directly address the issue of metaphor processing. A larger N400 to metaphoric than literal meaning of the same word is a typical finding (Arzouan, Goldstein, & Faust, 2007;Coulson & Severens, 2007;Kazmerski, Blasko, & Dessalegn, 2003;Lai, Curran, & Menn, 2009;Pynte, Besson, Robichon, & Poli, 1996). Using pictures (rather than words) as the context yielded a similar effect (Lu & Zhang, 2012).…”

“…Likewise, novel or unfamiliar metaphors result in a larger N400 than conventional and familiar metaphors (Arzouan et al, 2007;Pynte et al, 1996), and the N400 to unfamiliar metaphors decreases after an explicit discussion on their meaning (Goldstein, Arzouan, & Faust, 2002). Nevertheless, even highly familiar metaphors result in a larger N400 than literal expressions (De Grauwe, Swain, Holcomb, Ditman, & Kuperberg, 2010;Lai et al, 2009), although the N400 to familiar metaphors (e.g., Unemployment is a plague) is much smaller than to semantically incongruent expressions like Metal is a plague (De Grauwe et al, 2010). Although these latter findings are generally in accord with the graded salience theory (Giora, 2002), they were obtained in a weak context or in the absence of context.…”

Aproximación teórico-práctica al procesamiento lingüístico de neologismos léxicos

“…Frente a una mayoría de trabajos sobre la comparación neurológica del procesamiento del significado literal frente al de metáforas convencionales, son relativamente escasos los dedicados a las bases biológicas de las metáforas de nueva creación (Bottini, Corcoran, Sterzi, Paulesu, Schenone, Scarpa, Frackowiak & Frith 1994;Pynte, Besson, Robichon & Poli, 1996;Geiger, 1999;Schmidt, DeBuse & Seger, 2005;Ahrens, Liu, Lee, Gong, Fang & Hsu, 2007;Arzouan et al, 2007;Mashal, Faust, Hendler & Jung-Beeman, 2007;Lai et al, 2009). 12.…”

“…Así, aunque se ha demostrado mediante estudios experimentales que no hay diferencia en términos de duración temporal o esfuerzo cognitivo en el procesamiento de significados convencionales frente a significados metafóricos (Pollio, Fabrizi, Sills & Smith, 1984), los resultados son distintos para las metáforas de nueva creación 12 (Geiger, 1999;Arzouan, Goldstein & Faust, 2007;Lai, Curran & Menn, 2009). En cualquier caso, se ha argumentado que las rutas metafóricas ya conocidas sirven para activar nuevas conexiones, sin un gran coste cognitivo (Shibata, Abe, Terao & Miyamoto, 2007;Thibodeau & Durgin, 2008).…”