Список литературы

2313-8912

Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

2313-8912

10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-3-0-5

2874

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

<strong>Metaphoric construal and its effect on gaze behavior of the readers with better and worse working memory</strong>

Kiose

Maria I.

Kiose

Maria I.

maria_kiose@mail.ru

Izmalkova

Anna I.

Izmalkova

Anna I.

mayoran@mail.ru

Kharlamova

Tatiana G.

Kharlamova

Tatiana G.

toyster@mail.ru

Moscow State Linguistic University, Institute of Linguistics, RAS, RussiaMoscow State Linguistic University, Russia

2022

8300

Language creativity studies are now exploring new experimental methods which test the readers’ figurative thought. In the current work, we address the gaze behavior as contingent on figurative language construal in two participants’ groups with different amount of working memory. We verify the hypothesis that apart from metaphor types, novel and entrenched, gaze behavior is affected by metaphor construal patterns, here described as parameters. The study specifies the cognitive parameters of Referent construal, Event Frame construal, Perspective construal, and the linguistic parameters of graphological, lexical and syntactic construal. Regression analysis reveals several predictors of steady decrease and increase of the gaze costs within two participant groups. The participants with better working memory display higher gaze costs when the construal lacks action or dynamics; whereas the participants with worse working memory are affected by both linguistic and cognitive construal parameters including Clause-initial position for contrastive focus, Lexical synonyms and antonyms, Spontaneous or occasional event, Lack of action or dynamics. We also identified the predictors which decrease the gaze costs; the participants with worse working memory are affected by Perception (Event type), Shifting / changing, Agentive participant, Intensifiers in pre-position. Overall, the participants with worse working memory pay more attention to linguistic construal of metaphors, presumably, it creates additional affordances for metaphor construal; at the same time lower dynamicity in the cognitive construal produces higher gaze costs in both groups. The study shows that irrespective of the metaphor type, several construal patterns produce consistent gaze costs, either increased or decreased.

ConstrualFigurativityMetaphoric nominal groupsEye-trackingWorking memory

The research is financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project 20-012-00370 “Textual heterogeneity and the factors of its successful reading comprehension” at Moscow State Linguistic University.

Список литературы

Blasko, D. G. and Briihl, D. S. (1997). Reading and recall of metaphorical sentences: effects of familiarity and context, Metaphor and Symbol, 12 (4), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_4 (In English)

Blasko, D. G. and Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295 (In English)

Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors, Cоgnition, 75, 1–28. (In English)

Bowdler, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor, Psychological Review, 112, 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 (In English)

Cardillo, E., Watson, Ch. E., Schidt, G. L., Kranjec, A. and Chatterjee, A. (2012). From novel to familiar: tuning the brain for metaphors, Neuroimage, 59, 3212–3221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079 (In English)

Columbus, G., Sheikh, N. A., Côté-Lecaldare, M., Häuser, K., Baum, S. R. and Titone, D. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: an eye movement study of sentence reading, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 13 January 2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01057 (In English)

Coulson, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension and the brain, in Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 177–194, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. (In English)

Coulson, S. and van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potential study, Memory and Cognition, 30 (6), 958–968. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195780 (In English)

Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (In English)

Demyankov, V. Z. (1983). Event in semantics, pragmatics and interpretation coordinates, Izvestiya АN USSR. Literature and language series, 42 (4), 320–329. (In Russian)

Divjak, D., Milin, P. and Medimorec, S. (2020). Construal in language: A visual-world approach to the effects of linguistic alternations on event perception and conception, Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0103 (In English)

Farvardin, M., Mohammad, T., Afghari, A. and Koosha, M. (2014). The effect of dual N-Back task training on phonological memory expansion in adult EFL learners at the beginner level, English Language Teaching, 7, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n9p137 (In English)

Frisson, S. and Pickering, M. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye-movements, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1366–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366 (In English)

Gibbs, R. W. and Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence, in Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 161–176, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 (In English)

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. (In English)

Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I. and Ofer, F. (2018). Strongly mitigating a highly positive concept: The case of default sarcastic interpretations, Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio (In English)

Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphors, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 (In English)

Goatly, A. (2017). Metaphor and Grammar in the Poetic Representation of Nature, Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (1), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-1-48-72 (In English)

Goldstein, A., Arzouan, Y. and Faust, M. (2012). Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates of metaphor conventionalization, Brain and Language, 123, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.09.008 (In English)

Graumann, C. F. and Kallmeyer, W. (eds.) (2002). Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (In English)

Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S. and Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: a difficult case for activation theories, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 643–567. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2003.15.5.643 (In English)

Hart, C. and Queralto, J. M. (2021). What can cognitive linguistics tell us about language-image relations? A multidimensional approach to intersemiotic convergence in multimodal texts, Cognitive Linguistics, 32 (4), 529–562. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0039 (In English)

Iriskhanova, O. K. (2013). On perspectivization in cognitive linguistics, Cognitive Studies in Language, 15, 43–58. (In Russian)

Iriskhanova, O. K. (2014). Games of focus in language, Languages of Slavic culture, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J. and Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 105 (19), 6829–6833. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801268105 (In English)

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Miura, T. K. and Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33 (3), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615 (In English)

Kiose, M. I. and Kharlamova, T. G. (2021). Cognitive and eye-movement techniques in indirect nominal groups entrenchment, Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-16. DOI:10.20916/1812-3228-2021-1-5-16 (In Russian)

Kiose, M. I., Prokofyeva, O. N., Rzheshevskaya, A. A. and Kharlamova, T. G. (2020). Uniqueness and typicality effects in heterosemiotic units: Algorithm and analysis procedure, Critics and Semiotics, 2, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2020-2-70-86 (In Russian)

Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D. and Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013012 (In English)

Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12 (In English)

Langacker, R. W. (2015). Construal, in Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 120–143, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany. (In English)

Langacker, R. W. (2016). Entrenchment in cognitive grammar, in Schmid, H.-J. (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 39‒56, Mouton de Gruyter, Washington DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003 (In English)

Libben, M. and Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing, Memory and Cognition, 36, 1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1103 (In English)

Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, Massachusetts, USA. (In English)

Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J. and Clifton, Ch. Jr. (2012). The Psychology of Reading, 2nd Edition, Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis, New York, USA. (In English)

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104 (In English)

Richter, E. M., Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT, Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.003 (In English)

Schmid, H.-J. (ed.) (2016). Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, Mouton de Gruyter, Washington DC, USA. (In English)

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, two volumes, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA. (In English)

Thibodeau, P. H. and Boroditsky, L. (2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning, PLoS One, 8 (1), e52961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 (In English)

Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization, in Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48–81, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0003 (In English)

Wårwik, B. (2004). What is foregrounded in narratives? Hypotheses for the cognitive basis of foregrounding, in Virtanen, T. (ed.), Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse, 99–122, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. (In English)