Developmental versus language-based factors in metaphor interpretation.

Abstract

This study examines the respective roles of language proficiency and more general developmental factors (e.g., mental capacity, knowledge) in children's metaphor interpretation. Subjects were Spanish-English-speaking and monolingual-English children from 7 to 12 years of age. The samples were English-speaking middle-class (n ffi 31) and working-class children (n = 34) and Spanish-English-speaking children who were either long-term residents (n = 39) or recent immigrants to Canada (n = 21). These samples were equal in measured mental capacity but differed on measures of language proficiency in English. With a previously validated procedure, subjects' metaphor interpretations were scored for cognitive complexity. Metaphor score increased with age, and the developmental curves were parallel across the four samples. For metaphor score, effects due to language or socioeconomic status were of small magnitude in relation to those due to age.There is a rich body of data describing developmental changes in ability to comprehend metaphors (for reviews see

Field Dependence as a Factor in Second Language Communicative Production

“…We begin by examining performance levels of the two samples on the various measures. We expected the ESL sample to score lower than the native English-speaking group on the language measures (with the exception of metaphor fluency; Johnson, 1991b;Johnson & Rosano, 1993), but expected no group differences on the FDI measures. Table 1 contains sample means by group for the cognitive style and language measures.…”

Cognitive and Personality Components Underlying Spoken Idiom Comprehension in Context. An Exploratory Study

“…Surprisingly enough, this new wave of studies on individual variability has predominantly concerned literal language almost ignoring figurative language, despite its pervasiveness. The few studies on individual differences in figurative language comprehension have predominantly concerned the comprehension and/or production of metaphorical sentences in adults (e.g., Kazmerski et al, 2003 ; Chiappe and Chiappe, 2007 ; Pierce et al, 2010 ) and/or children and adolescents (e.g., Nippold and Martin, 1989 ; Johnson, 1991 ; Nippold et al, 2001 ; Qualls and Harris, 2003 ; Qualls et al, 2003 ; Carriedo et al, 2015 ). Metaphor comprehension requires a high level of intellectual ability, processing capacity and inhibitory control (e.g., Kintsch, 2000 , 2001 ; Kazmerski et al, 2003 ; Carriedo et al, 2015 ).…”

Trajectories of pragmatic and nonliteral language development in children with autism spectrum disorders

“…For TD children, there is some evidence that language abilities develop together in parallel, with basic language abilities (such as vocabulary) correlating strongly with nonliteral language abilities (Johnson, 1991;Rundblad & Annaz, 2010a). Research suggests that understanding of nonliteral language is supported by the ability to use the linguistic and social context to abstract meaning, and that vocabulary and syntax abilities are likely to support this process (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012;Rundblad & Annaz, 2010a;Vosniadou, 1987).…”