Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Interplay of Syntactic and Lexical Salience and its Effect on Default Figurative Responses Cover

The Interplay of Syntactic and Lexical Salience and its Effect on Default Figurative Responses

By: Maria Kiose  
Open Access
|Mar 2020

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
  2. Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
  3. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  4. Charteris-Black, J. (2012). Shattering the bell jar: Metaphor, gender and depression. Metaphor and symbol, 27(3), 199–216.10.1080/10926488.2012.665796
  5. Coulson, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 177–194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Coulson, S., & van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition, 30(6), 958–968.10.3758/BF03195780
  7. Coulson, S., & Lai, V. T. (2015). The metaphorical brain. Lausanne: Frontiers Media.
  8. Divjak, D. (2015). Exploring the grammar of perception. A case study using data from Russian. Functions of Language, 22(1), 44–68.
  9. Faucett, J. M., Risco, E. F., & Kingstone, A. (2015). The handbook of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/10033.001.0001
  10. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B. F., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Gibbs, R. W. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review, 99, 572–577.10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.572
  12. Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929.10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00100-3
  14. Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–257.10.1207/S15327868MS1404_1
  16. Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313.10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
  17. Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., & Fein, O. (2018). Strongly mitigating a highly positive concept: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 19–47.10.1075/rcl.00002.gio
  18. Givón, T. (1987). Beyond foreground and background. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 175–168). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  19. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 85–96.10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90467-4
  20. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18.10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
  21. Gold, R., & Faust, M. (2010). Right hemisphere dysfunction and metaphor comprehension in young adults with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(7), 800–811.10.1007/s10803-009-0930-1
  22. Golubkova, E. E. (2014). Ispolzovaniye lingvisticheskih korpusov pri reshenii semanticheskikh problem. In V. I. Zabotkina & E. E. Golubkova (Eds.), Metody kognitivnogo analiza semantiki slova: Komputerno-korpusnyi podkhod (pp. 34–75). Moscow: Yazyki Slavianskoi Kultury. (In Russ.).
  23. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.) (2006). Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709
  24. Hetmański, M. (2015). Metaphoric confinement of information. Studies in Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, 40(53), 161–178.10.1515/slgr-2015-0009
  25. Iakimova, G., Passerioux, C., Denhière, G., Laurent, J.-P., Vistoli, D., Vilain, J., & Hardy-Baylé, M.-C. (2010). The influence of idiomatic salience during the comprehension of ambiguous idioms by patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 177(1–2), 46–54.10.1016/j.psychres.2010.02.005
  26. Iriskhanova, O. (2014). Igry fokusa v yazyke: Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya. Moscow: Yazyki Slavianskoi Kultury. (In Russ.).
  27. Kauschke, C., Mueller, N., Kircher, T., & Nagels, A. (2018). Do patients with depression prefer literal or metaphorical expressions for internal states? Evidence from sentence completion and elicited production. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1326.10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01326
  28. Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 31(5), 673–689.10.3758/BF03196107
  29. Kiose, M. (2018). Factors of co-referent indirect names interpretation in text: Cognitive analysis – statistics – experiment. Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki), 3, 16–26. (In Russ.).10.20916/1812-3228-2018-3-16-26
  30. Kintsch, W., & Bowles, A. (2002). Metaphor comprehension: What makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(4), 249–262.10.1207/S15327868MS1704_1
  31. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading. The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35.
  32. MacKay, G., & Shaw, A. (2004). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20, 13–32.10.1191/0265659004ct261oa
  33. National corpus of the Russian language. Retrieved from http://www.ruscorpora.ru/
  34. Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 383–399.10.1348/026151005X26732
  35. Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F.-H., & Poli, J. (1996). The time-course of metaphor comprehension: an event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 316, 293–316.10.1006/brln.1996.0107
  36. Rapp, A. M., Felsenheimer, A. K., Langohr, K., & Klupp, M. (2017). The comprehension of familiar and novel metaphoric meanings in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2251.
  37. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
  38. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  39. Ritchie, D. (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139136822
  40. Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Autism, 14, 29–46.10.1177/1362361309340667
  41. Semino, E., & Short, M. (2004). Corpus stylistics: Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203494073
  42. Schmid, H.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Staub, A. (2015). Reading sentences: Syntactic parsing and semantic interpretation. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 202–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Steen, G., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.14
  45. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
  46. Tomlin, R. S. (1987). Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 455–479). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  47. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.6
  48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In A. Tversky & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  50. Vulchanova, M., Saldańa, D., Chahboun, S., & Vulchanov, V. (2015). Figurative language processing in atypical populations: the ASD perspective. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 24.10.3389/fnhum.2015.00024
  51. Wårwik, B. (2004). What is foregrounded in narratives? Hypotheses for the cognitive basis of foregrounding. In T. Virtanen (Ed.), Approaches to cognition through text and discourse (pp. 99–122). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2020-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6059 | Journal ISSN: 0860-150X
Language: English
Page range: 69 - 88
Published on: Mar 20, 2020
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2020 Maria Kiose, published by University of Białystok
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.