The iconic representation of metaphor. An event-related potentials (ERPs) analysis of figurative language
The aim of the study is to explore the iconic representation of frozen metaphor. Starting from the dichotomy between the pragmatic models, for which metaphor is a semantic anomaly, and the direct access models, where metaphor is seen as similar to literal language, the cognitive and linguistic proce...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
LED Edizioni Universitarie
2007-11-01
|
| Series: | Neuropsychological Trends |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ledonline.it/NeuropsychologicalTrends/allegati/NeuropsychologicalTrends_2_Balconi.pdf |
| Summary: | The aim of the study is to explore the iconic representation of frozen metaphor. Starting from the dichotomy between the pragmatic models, for which metaphor is a semantic anomaly, and the direct access models, where metaphor is seen as similar to literal language, the cognitive and linguistic processes involved in metaphor comprehension are analyzed using behavioural data (RTs) and neuropsychological indexes (ERPs). 36 subjects listened to 160 sentences equally shared in the variables content (metaphorical vs literal) and congruousness (anomalous vs not semantically anomalous). The ERPs analysis showed two negative deflections (N3-N4 complex), that indicated different cognitive processes involved in sentence comprehension. Repeated measures ANOVA, applied to peak amplitude and latency variables, suggested in fact N4 as index of semantic anomaly (incongruous stimuli), more localized in posterior (Pz) area, while N3 was sensitive to the content variable: metaphor sentences had an ampler deflection than literal ones and posteriorly distributed (Oz). Adding this results with behavioral data (no differences for metaphor vs literal), it seems that the difference between metaphorical and literal decoding isn’t for the cognitive complexity of decoding (direct or indirect access), but for its representation format, which is more iconic for metaphor (as N3 suggests). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1970-321X 1970-3201 |