Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge

British Journal of Developmental Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 547-563

  Rundblad, Gabriella ^a   Annaz, Dagmara ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; LITERATURE; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SEMANTICS; SYMBOLISM; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; METAPHOR; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY; SEMANTICS; SYMBOLISM; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955756717     PISSN: 0261510X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/026151009X454373     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Annaz,D., Karmiloff-Smith, A.,&Thomas, M. S. C. (2008). The importance of tracing developmental trajectories for clinical child neuropsychology. In J. Reed & J. Warner Rogers (Eds.), Child neuropsychology: Concepts, theory and practice (pp. 7-18). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207-278). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Barcelona, A. (2003). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31-58). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 11, 415-423.
5. Billow, R. M. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphor in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 430-445.
6. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2003). Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? International Journal of English Studies, 3, 85-105.
7. Blank, A. (2003). Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In R. Eckardt, K. von Heusinger, & C. Schwarze (Eds.), Words in time. Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp. 37-65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Carlson, P., & Anisfeld, M. (1969). Some observations on the linguistics competence of a two-yearold child. Child Development, 40, 565-575.
9. Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event related study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958-968.
11. 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.
12. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. de Bonis, M., Epelbaum, C., Deffez, V., & Feline, A. (1997). The comprehension of metaphors in schizophrenia. Psychopathology, 30, 149-154.
14. Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 3, 47-54.
15. Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 75-111). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). British Picture Vocabulary Scale II. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
17. Feyaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic hierarchies. The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
18. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1366-1383.
19. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 149-171.
20. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 595-613.
21. Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59, 47-59.
22. Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275-304.
23. Gibbs, R. W. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 56-66.
24. Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486.
25. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183-206.
26. Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487-506.
27. Glucksberg, S. (1991). Beyond literal meaning: The psychology of allusion. Psychological Science, 2, 146-152.
28. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
29. Jarrold, C., & Brock, J. (2004). To match or not to match? Methodological issues in autism-related research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 81-86.
30. Jones, J., & Stone, C. A. (1989). Metaphor comprehension by language learning disabled and normally achieving adolescent boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 251-260.
31. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 389-398.
32. Karmiloff-Smith, A., Thomas, M., Annaz,D., Humphreys, K., Ewing, S.,&Brace,N. (2004). Exploring the Williams Syndrome face processing debate: The importance of building developmental trajectories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1258-1274.
33. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 375-385.
34. Keysar, B., Shen, Y. I., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576-593.
35. Kircher, T. T. J., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Rapp, A. M. (2007). Neural correlates of metaphor processing in schizophrenia. NeuroImage, 34, 281-289.
36. Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 103, 8-249.
37. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. MacKay, G., & Shaw, A. (2004). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20, 13-32.
41. McElree, B., & Nordlie, J. (1999). Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 486-494.
42. Özçaliskan, S. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32, 291-318.
43. Pauwels, P. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 255-272). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
44. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269-316.
45. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
46. Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., & Pollio, M. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychotherapy and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.
47. Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F. H., & Poli, J. (1996). The timecourse of metaphor comprehension, an event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55, 293-316.
48. Rice, M. L. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In M. L. Rice & S. F. Waren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies (pp. 207-240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Riemer, N. (2001). Remetonymizing metaphor: Hypercategories in semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 379-401.
50. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gay, W. D., Boyes-Braem, P., & Johnson, D. N. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
51. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91-120). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
53. Shen, Y. (1992). Metaphor and categories. Poetics Today, 13, 771-794.
54. Smith, J. W. A. (1976). Children's comprehension of metaphor: A piagetian interpretation. Language & Speech, 19, 235-243.
55. Stringaris, A. K., Medford, N. C., Giampietro, V., Brammer, M. J., & David, A. S. (2007). Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences. Brain and Language, 100, 150-162.
56. Thomas, M. S. C., Annaz, D., Ansari, D., Scerif, G., Jarrold, C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2009). Using developmental trajectories to understand genetic disorders. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 52, 336-358.
57. Turner, N. E., & Katz, A. (1997). Evidence for the availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs. Pragmatics and Cognition, 5, 203-237.
58. Ullmann, S. (1967). The principles of semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
59. Vosniadou, S. (1987). Contextual and linguistic factors in children's comprehension of nonliteral language. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 1-11.
60. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1983). The emergence of the literal-metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development, 54, 154-161.
61. Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., & Wilson, P. T. (1984). Sources of difficulty in the young child's understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development, 55, 1588-1606.
62. Waggoner, J. E., Messe, M. J., & Palermo, D. S. (1985). Grasping the meaning of metaphor: Story recall and comprehension. Child Development, 56, 1156-1166.
63. Winner, E. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. Journal of Child Language, 6, 469-491.
64. Winner, E., Engel, M., & Gardner, H. (1980). Misunderstanding metaphor: What's the problem. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 22-32.
65. Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A. K., & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology, 12, 289-297.