Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 243–256
Regular articles

The length of preceding context influences metonymy processing

Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment

| University of International Business and Economics
| Beijing International Studies University
Earlier studies have shown that conceptually supportive context is an important factor in the comprehension of metaphors (Inhoff, Lima, & Carroll, 1984; Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, & Antos, 1978). However, little empirical evidence has been found so far regarding contextual effects on metonymy processing (Lowder & Gordon, 2013). Implementing an eye-tracking experiment with Chinese materials, this present paper investigated whether and how preceding contextual information affects the processing of metonymy. The results show that for unfamiliar metonymies, it takes readers longer time to interpret unfamiliar metonymies than to literally interpret them given a shorter context. However, the processing disparity between metonymic comprehension and literal comprehension disappears when longer supportive information is available in the preceding context. These results are analogous to those found for metaphors and familiar metonymies, supporting the parallel model of language processing. In addition, our results suggest that the presence of supportive preceding context facilitates the processing of unfamiliar metonymies more than it does to the literal controls.
Keywords: metonymy processing, contextual effects, eye tracking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Linguistic studies about the contextual influence on metonymy comprehension
    • 1.2Psychological studies on the contextual influence on metonymy processing
    • 1.3Research questions and hypotheses
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Equipment and procedure
  • 3.Findings
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00033.che
References (26)
References
Chen, X. (2011). Metonymy matrix domain and multiple formations in Indirect Speech Act. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 249–269). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1983). Understanding old words with new meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(5), 591–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronk, B. C., Lima, S. D., & Schweigert, W. A. (1993). Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(1), 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durán Escribano, P., & Roldán-Riejos, A. (2008). The role of context in the interpretation of academic and professional communication. In T. Gibert Maceda & L. Alba Juez (Eds.), Estudios de Filología Inglesa: Homenaje a la Dra. Asunción Alba Pelayo (pp. 81–94). Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.Google Scholar
(2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 56–66.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (1991). Beyond literal meanings: The psychology of allusion. Psychological Science, 2(3), 146–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980/2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2013). It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 993–1011.Google Scholar
Lowder, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2014). Effects of animacy and noun-phrase relatedness on the processing of complex sentences. Memory & cognition, 42(5), 794–805.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1981). Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, K. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 763–772. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, R. E., & Schwartz, R. M. (1983). Relation of metaphoric processing to comprehension and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 450–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. Köpcke, M. T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schraw, G. (1995). Components of metaphoric processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shinjo, M., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of context in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 226–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chen, Xianglan, Hulin Ren & XiaoYing Yan
2022. Metonymy Processing in Chinese: A Linguistic Context-Sensitive Eye-Tracking Preliminary Study. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

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.