The confusion between sentential figurativeness and conventionality found in many of the experiments on figurative language comprehension is here disentangled by factorially crossing the figurativeness of a proverb (determined by discourse context) with conventionality (determined by familiarity of use). Familiar proverbs are conventionally used in their figurative (and not literal) sense whereas for unfamiliar proverbs the literal meaning (and not the figurative sense) is more available. Multiple dependent measures were employed: the time taken to read the target (experiments 1, 2 and 3), incidental recognition tests of target (experiments 1 and 2), recognition errors (experiments 1 and 2), interpretation errors (experiment 2), and recall aided by context-appropriate or inappropriate cues (experiment 3). Reading time data indicated that unfamiliar proverbs used figuratively took longer to read than the same proverb used literally or literal paraphrase controls. Familiar proverbs were read equally fast, whether understood as a literal or figurative statement. The pattern of memory errors and cued-recall data indicate that conventional meaning and literal meaning are both available in context-appropriate and context-inappropriate conditions, whereas unconventional meaning is available only in context-appropriate conditions.
2021. Perception of Formulaic Speech. In The Handbook of Speech Perception, ► pp. 309 ff.
Chahboun, Sobh, Valentin Vulchanov, David Saldaña, Hendrik Eshuis & Mila Vulchanova
2017. Can you tell it by the prime? A study of metaphorical priming in high‐functioning autism in comparison with matched controls. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 52:6 ► pp. 766 ff.
Gold, Rinat & Osnat Segal
2017. Metaphor Comprehension by Deaf Young Adults. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 22:3 ► pp. 316 ff.
Haibo, Shen, Wang Yan & Liu Wenyu
2017. Familiarity in Chinese and English Idiom Comprehension: An Event Related Potential Study from Chinese English Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 40:1
Citron, Francesca M. M., Cristina Cacciari, Michael Kucharski, Luna Beck, Markus Conrad & Arthur M. Jacobs
2016. When emotions are expressed figuratively: Psycholinguistic and Affective Norms of 619 Idioms for German (PANIG). Behavior Research Methods 48:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
Yang, Seung-yun, Ji Sook Ahn & Diana Van Lancker Sidtis
2015. The perceptual and acoustic characteristics of Korean idiomatic and literal sentences. Speech, Language and Hearing 18:3 ► pp. 166 ff.
Cacciari, Cristina & Costanza Papagno
2012. Neuropsychological and Neurophysiological Correlates of Idiom Understanding: How many Hemispheres are Involved?. In The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language, ► pp. 368 ff.
Ferentzy, Peter & Nigel E. Turner
2012. Morals, medicine, metaphors, and the history of the disease model of problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues :27
Ferentzy, Peter & Nigel E. Turner
2013. The History of Gambling and Its Intersection with Technology, Religion, Medical Science, and Metaphors. In The History of Problem Gambling, ► pp. 5 ff.
Berman, Ruth A. & Dorit Ravid
2010. Interpretation and Recall of Proverbs in Three School-age Populations. First Language 30:2 ► pp. 155 ff.
Katz, Albert & Ada Law
2010. Experimental Support for Conceptual Metaphors with an Episodic Memory Task. Metaphor and Symbol 25:4 ► pp. 263 ff.
Rundblad, Gabriella & Dagmara Annaz
2010. Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28:3 ► pp. 547 ff.
Mashal, N. & M. Faust
2009. Conventionalisation of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 14:6 ► pp. 573 ff.
Faust, M. & N. Mashal
2007. The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: A divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 45:4 ► pp. 860 ff.
Mashal, N., M. Faust, T. Hendler & M. Jung-Beeman
2007. An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language 100:2 ► pp. 115 ff.
Blasko, Dawn G. & Victoria A. Kazmerski
2006. ERP Correlates of Individual Differences in the Comprehension of Nonliteral Language. Metaphor and Symbol 21:4 ► pp. 267 ff.
Casakin, Hernan P
2006. Assessing the Use of Metaphors in the Design Process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33:2 ► pp. 253 ff.
Bowdle, Brian F. & Dedre Gentner
2005. The Career of Metaphor.. Psychological Review 112:1 ► pp. 193 ff.
Mashal, N., M. Faust & T. Hendler
2005. The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia 43:14 ► pp. 2084 ff.
Katz, Albert N. & Todd R. Ferretti
2003. Reading Proverbs in Context:The Role of Explicit Markers. Discourse Processes 36:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Gentner, Dedre & Brian Bowdle
2001. Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16:3 ► pp. 223 ff.
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2001. Proverbial themes we live by. Poetics 29:3 ► pp. 167 ff.
Katz, Albert & Todd Ferretti
2001. Moment-By-Moment Reading of Proverbs in Literal and Nonliteral Contexts. Metaphor and Symbol 16:3 ► pp. 193 ff.
Giora, Rachel
1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31:7 ► pp. 919 ff.
Giora, Rachel
2000. Irony. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ► pp. 1 ff.
Giora, Rachel
2002. Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?. Journal of Pragmatics 34:4 ► pp. 487 ff.
Katz, Albert N.
1999. Proverb in Mind: The Cognitive Science of Proverbial Wit and Wisdom (Book Review). Metaphor and Symbol 14:1 ► pp. 71 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.