Article published in:
Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 96–111

Cross-linguistic metaphor priming in ASL-English bilinguals

Effects of the Double Mapping Constraint

| Bielefeld University
| San Diego State University
| San Diego State University
| San Diego State University
| San Diego State University
Meir’s (2010) Double Mapping Constraint (DMC) states the use of iconic signs in metaphors is restricted to signs that preserve the structural correspondence between the articulators and the concrete source domain and between the concrete and metaphorical domains. We investigated ASL signers’ comprehension of English metaphors whose translations complied with the DMC (Communication collapsed during the meeting) or violated the DMC (The acid ate the metal). Metaphors were preceded by the ASL translation of the English verb, an unrelated sign, or a still video. Participants made sensibility judgments. Response times (RTs) were faster for DMC-Compliant sentences with verb primes compared to unrelated primes or the still baseline. RTs for DMC-Violation sentences were longer when preceded by verb primes. We propose the structured iconicity of the ASL verbs primed the semantic features involved in the iconic mapping and these primed semantic features facilitated comprehension of DMC-Compliant metaphors and slowed comprehension of DMC-Violation metaphors.
Keywords: metaphor, iconicity, sign language, bimodal bilingualism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Stimuli
    • 2.3Procedure
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00045.sch
References
Basnight-Brown, Dana & Jeanette Altarriba
2007 Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition 35(5). 953–965. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera
2001 Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1). 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera & Michael Ramscar
2002 The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13(2). 185–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen
2014 Iconicity as structure-mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 20130301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. & Teenie Matlock
2008 Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 161–176. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hosemann, Jana, Nivedita Mani, Annika Herrmann, Markus Steinbach & Nicole Altvater-Mackensen
2020 Signs activate their written word translation in deaf adults: An ERP study on cross-modal co-activation in German Sign Language. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jamrozik, Anja, Marguerite McQuire, Eileen R. Cardillo & Anjan Chatterjee
2016 Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(4). 1080–1089. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kubus, Okan, Agnes Villwock, Jill P. Morford & Christian Rathmann
2015 Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics 361. 831–854. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Brittany, Gabriela Meade, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
2019 ERP evidence for co-activation of English words during recognition of American Sign Language signs. Brain Sciences 9(6). 148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meade, Gabriela, Katherine Midgley, Zed Sevickova Sehyr, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
2017 Implicit co-activation of American Sign Language in deaf readers: An ERP study. Brain and Language 1701. 50–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit
2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 861. 865–896. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, Katherine J., Phillip J. Holcomb & Jonathan Grainger
2009 Language effects in second language learners and proficient bilinguals investigated with event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22(3). 281–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morford, Jill P., Erin Wilkinson, Agnes Villwock, Pilar Piñar & Judith F. Kroll
2011 When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition 118(2). 286–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mott, Megan, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
2020 Cross-modal translation priming and iconicity effects in deaf signers and hearing learners of American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–13 (online first). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Manami, Amy J. Schafer & Ben K. Bergen
2015 Metaphor priming in sentence production: Concrete pictures affect abstract language production. Acta Psychologica 1561. 136–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F.
2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, Janet G., Ellen Ormel, Jay van der Loop & Daan Hermans
2009 Cross-language interaction in unimodal and bimodal bilinguals. Paper presented at the 16th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Cracow, Poland.
Villameriel, Saul, Patricia Dias, Brendan Costello & Manuel Carreiras
2016 Cross-language and cross-modal activation in hearing bimodal bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language 871. 59–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Nicole L. & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.
2007 Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science 31(4). 721–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis
2004 A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 197–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar