When is literal meaning inhibited? Evidence from nonsense in the metaphor-induced lexical forgetting paradigm.

Abstract

A common feature of metaphoric language processing is a conflict between literal and figurative aspects of meaning. A consequence of this is the need to select the most appropriate meaning among competing associates when we encounter such phrases. The goal of the present experiments was to adapt the "impossible" retrieval approach of previous retrieval-induced and problem-solving-induced forgetting (RIF; PSIF) studies to test for the use of inhibitory mechanisms during metaphor comprehension. To achieve this goal, a series of 3 studies assessed forgetting following the processing of nonsense metaphors that were unlikely to lead to viable interpretations within a short period of time (Jealousy is a barn). In the first 2 experiments, processing nonsense metaphors led to reduced recall for previously studied literal associates. In a 3rd study, processing nonsense metaphors led to longer recognition latencies for literal associates on a cue-independent task. In contrast, no evidence of forgetting was seen because of the processing of familiar metaphors in any study. Because participants are unlikely to reach a viable interpretation of these nonsense metaphors, and because results were similar using recall and cue-independent recognition measures, these results provide novel support for an inhibitory account for this forgetting effect over a blocking or cue-based interference account. (PsycINFO Database Record

Retrieval dynamics in resolving relational inconsistency during verbal analogical reasoning.

“…Additionally, this relational consistency resulted in shorter processing time. This recall pattern fits with prior work showing similar forgetting effects in other problem solving and reasoning tasks (George & Wiley, 2016, 2019; Storm et al, 2011; Storm & Patel, 2014).…”

“…These results demonstrate that when a verbal analogy problem involves a shift in the relation from a previously studied version of the analogy, impaired recall for the original analogy is observed. This is consistent with similar forgetting effects observed in other forms of thinking and problem solving (George & Wiley, 2016, 2019; Storm et al, 2011; Storm & Patel, 2014). One interpretation of this finding is that the relation represented in the new problem was incompatible with the relation from the studied analogy.…”

“…A similar finding was reported by Storm and Patel (2014) in which generating alternate uses for common objects (e.g., newspaper ) caused forgetting of previously-studied common ideas (e.g., gift wrap, papier mâché ). Other recent work by George and Wiley (2016, 2019) demonstrated that thinking about novel metaphor expressions (e.g., “Discipline is fertilizer”) caused forgetting of irrelevant literal associations of the metaphoric term ( fertilizer-odor ) to which participants had been exposed earlier. This was interpreted to be the result of inhibitory mechanisms that help reduce the accessibility of the irrelevant literal information during metaphor comprehension.…”

Exploring Non-Pharmacological Management among Anesthesia Providers to Reduce Preoperative Distress in Children

“…While toddlers rely on parents' reactions and emotional cues for interpretation of medical terminology and explanations, preschoolers make literal interpretations of terminology commonly used in the perioperative environment. For example, telling a child "you are going to sleep now" may not be understood as the process of receiving a general anesthetic, but rather as a "forceful nap" intended to exert control over them and separate them from parents (George & Wiley, 2019;Starr & Srinivasan, 2018). The anesthesia providers also mentioned the use of short, simple sentences and child-friendly language as effective methods to communicate with children.…”