Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic approximations by monolingual children: A corpus analysis

Abstract

The present study looks into the largely unexplored territory of the cognitive underpinnings of semantic approximations in child language. The analysis of a corpus of 233 semantic approximations produced by 101 monolingual French-speaking children from 1;8 to 4;2 years of age leads to a classification of a significant number of them as instances of a set of principle-governed cognitive operations, including metaphor and metonymy-based cognitive operations, and conceptual complexes, such as metaphtonymies and double metonymies. The results shed light on cognitive operation preferences and their level of conceptual complexity at this stage of language development. Additionally, it points to the need to expand the inventory of functions traditionally assigned to these cognitive operations.

Hoe jong Afrikaanssprekende kinders betekenis aan hul vroeë taalgebruik verbind

“…This corresponds with studies done by Péréz-Hernández and Duvignau (2016) on French speaking children and Rundblad and Annaz (2010) on English children in which it was found that metonymy is more basic than metaphor.…”

Metaphor processing in middle childhood and at the transition to early adolescence: the role of chronological age, mental age, and verbal intelligence

“…Although some claim that metaphor competence develops within a continuum, the current study, as well as other recent studies (e.g., Willinger et al, 2017), indicates that children and adolescents might show spurts in metaphorical language development. Regarding the development of metaphor processing, it was shown that (very) young children also understand some metaphors (e.g., Gibbs & Colston, 2012;Pérez-Hernández & Duvignau, 2016). Research indicates that, before effectively using explicit techniques like COMPARISON and CATEGORIZATION that are commonly associated with metaphoric language (Gentner & Bowdle, 2008;Glucksberg, 2001), pragmatic conventions are constructed long before actual language in terms of metaphorical thought (e.g., Alessandroni, 2017).…”

“…Research indicates that, before effectively using explicit techniques like COMPARISON and CATEGORIZATION that are commonly associated with metaphoric language (Gentner & Bowdle, 2008;Glucksberg, 2001), pragmatic conventions are constructed long before actual language in terms of metaphorical thought (e.g., Alessandroni, 2017). In the course of development, children start very early to overextend the meanings of words in order to label things or express (mostly) non-abstract concepts for which they lack literal terms (see, e.g., Clark, 2003;Pérez-Hernández & Duvignau, 2016;Pouscoulous, 2011). Until approximately age four, children use metaphors in the form of overextended meanings of terms already acquired (Nerlich, Clarke, & Todd, 1999), whereas at some point they are able to deliberately extend meanings in order to intentionally overcome literal borders (e.g., Pouscoulous, 2011).…”

Children’s Metaphor Comprehension and Production

“…Children's performance in this area improves by the age of 5, at which time they can produce similarity-based explanations when asked about expressions that involve comparisons between objects (Vosniadou 1987;Özçalişkan 200;Siltanen, 2009). Th us, preschool children can both understand and spontaneously produce a variety of expressions based on similarity, an achievement that is considered to be the earliest form of metaphorical ability in young children (Pérez-Hernández, Duvignau, 2016). Children of any age have no diffi culty understanding feature-based commonalities between objects, but it is only with increasing age that they can begin to understand mappings based on relational structure, and accordingly, produce explanations that refl ect this understanding (Özçalişkan, 2007).…”