It is not always a matter of time: Addressing the costs of metaphor and metonymy through a speed-accuracy trade-off study.

Abstract

One of the most debated topics in figurative language studies is whether the access to nonliteral meanings is direct or indirect. Although models that argue for longer processing times for figurative compared to literal meanings have been largely criticized, figurative language is often associated with increased cognitive work. We investigated whether such greater cognitive work is indicative of more time-consuming processes or rather lower availability of figurative meanings, and whether there are differences between figurative types. We used a multiresponse Speed-Accuracy Trade-off paradigm, where a meaningfulness judgment task was combined with a response deadline procedure to estimate speed and accuracy independently for metaphorical (Those dancers are butterflies) and metonymic sentences (That student reads Camilleri), compared with literal equivalents. While both metaphors and metonymies showed lower asymptote, that is, they were judged less accurately than literal counterparts, only metonymies were associated with a processing delay. Moreover, the difference in asymptote with respect to the literal condition was greater for metaphor than for metonymy. These findings indicate that the process that derives metaphor and metonymy is more complex than the process that derives literal meanings, even more so for metaphor. The processing delay, however, is present only in the case of metonymies. Taken together, our study offers key findings that reconcile a lively debate on the time course of figurative language comprehension, showing that the cost of non-literal meaning is not always a matter of time, and depends also on the figurative type.

Tracking meaning evolution in the brain: Processing consequences of conventionalization

“…Producer-for-product metonymy (Dickens) has not revealed any differences in reading times (McElree et al, 2006), eye-tracking (Frisson & Pickering, 1999) or ERP research (Weiland-Breckle & Schumacher, 2017), as long as the source concept is known (see Frisson & Pickering, 1999, 2007 for studies with a newly introduced concept such as Needham as an author). A speed-accuracy trade-off study of producer-for-product metonymy showed a lower probability to arrive at a meaningful interpretation (asymptotic level) in comparison to the literal control reading, but no differences in processing dynamics (Bambini et al, 2021). Likewise, place-for-institution metonymy (the university called) as well as place-for-event metonymy (she protested during Vietnam) also registered no effects (Frisson & Pickering, 1999;Bott et al, 2016) nor did content-for-container metonymy (hand me the beer) (Schumacher, 2013).…”

Grice's Café: coffee, cream, and metaphor comprehension

“…I follow influential scholarship (Gibbs, 1994;Coulson and Matlock, 2001;Camp, 2006c;Bambini and Resta, 2012;Weiland et al, 2014;Bambini et al, 2016Bambini et al, , 2021Rapp et al, 2018;Patalas and de Almeida, 2019;Pissani and de Almeida, 2022) in referring to this group as "direct access theorists". I acknowledge that there is a diversity of positions amassed under this banner.…”

Efficacy and benefits of the MetaCom training to promote metaphor comprehension in typical development

“…Further inferences lead to the interpretation of the metaphor, for instance, 'Sally is inconsistent' or perhaps, in a different context, 'Sally is not reliable'. Thus, metaphor comprehension is derived through a series of pragmatic inferences that involve exploring the encyclopedic properties of lexical concepts and taking context into account (for a processing-oriented discussion of this account, see (Bambini et al, 2021)). This was the basis for our training strategy: we taught children how to adjust the lexical concepts by selecting the relevant properties and use the context in order to infer and explain the meanings of metaphors.…”