Lexical access in text production On the role of salience in metaphor resonance

Human Cognitive Processing

Volumn 8, Issue , 2001, Pages 111-124

  Giora, Rachel ^a   Balaban, Noga ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85190668990     PISSN: 13876724     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.8.06gio     Document Type: Chapter

References (63)

1. Williams (1992) actually studies polysemous words but most of them were metaphorically based.
2. Inconsistently with the direct access view, the consensus is that comprehension of novel metaphors differs from comprehension of familiar metaphors and should involve activating their contextually incompatible salient meaning, i.e., their literal meaning (e.g., Keysar et al. 2000, and see Gibbs 1994 for a review).
3. The modular view of lexical access in speech production distinguishes between meaning-related and form-related processes (see, e.g., Levelt 1993; Dell & O'Seaghdha 1992). However, this view is only marginally relevant to our discussion here.
4. Blasko, G. D., & Connine, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295-308.
5. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Dell, S. G., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287-314.
7. Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1997). Attributing meaning to deliberately false utterances: The case of irony. In C. Mandell, & A. McCabe (Eds.), The problem of meaning: Behavioral and cognitive perspectives (pp. 377-414). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
8. Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1999). Obligatory processing of the literal and nonliteral meanings of ironic utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1579-1599.
9. Du Bois, W. J. (1998). Dialogic syntax. Paper presented at The cognitive theories of intertextuality conference. Tel Aviv university.
10. Du Bois, W. J. (2000a). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English. CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.[www.ldc.upenn.edu/Publications/SBC/].
11. Du Bois, W. J. (2000b). Reusable syntax: Socially distributed cognition in dialogic interaction. Paper presented at CSDL 2000: Fifth Conference on Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. University of California, Santa Barbara.
12. Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
14. Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., & Robertson, R. W. (in press). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language.
15. Gerrig, R. J. (1989). The time course of sense creation. Memory & Cognition, 17, 194-207.
16. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1980). Spilling the bean on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 449-456.
17. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 3-15.
18. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 56-66.
19. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 577-590.
21. Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239-264.
22. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183-206.
23. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and private figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
24. Giora, R. (in press). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 241-257.
26. Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999b). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601-1618.
27. Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999c). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor, 12, 425-436.
28. Giora, R., Fein O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83-101.
29. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. G. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85-98.
30. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
31. Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 323-335.
32. Gorfein, S. D. (Ed.). (1989). Resolving semantic ambiguity. New York: Springer Verlag. Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts. Syntax and semantics. 3 (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
33. Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 265-274.
34. Honeck, R. P. (1997). A proverb in mind: The cognitive science of proverbial wit and wisdom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12, 558-567.
36. Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 473-487.
37. Jones, J. L. (1991). Early integration of context during lexical access of homonym meanings. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 10, 163-181.
38. Kemper, S. (1981). Comprehension and interpretation of proverbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 179-183.
39. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 375-385.
40. Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, S. W. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576-593.
41. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
42. Levelt, W. J. M. (Ed.). (1993). Lexical access in speech production. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell.
43. Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental psychology, 52, (2).
44. McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 167-190.
45. Nayak, N., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in idiom interpretation. Journal of experimental Psychology: General, 116, 315-330.
46. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9, 225-236.
47. 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, 465-477.
48. Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Can context selectively activate the contextually appropriate meaning of an ambiguous word? Metaphor and Symbol.
49. Pexman P., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A. (2000). Discourse factors that inXuence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201-222.
50. Rayner, K., Pacht J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
51. Récanati, F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal meaning. Cognitive Science, 19, 207-232.
52. Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory Processing of the Literal Meaning of Ironic Utterances: Further Evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 47-61.
53. Shen, Y. (1997). Metaphors and global conceptual structures. Poetics, 25, 1-17.
54. Shen, Y., & Balaban, N. (1999). Metaphorical (in)coherence in discourse. Discourse Processes, 28, 139-154.
55. Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
56. Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374). San Diego: Academic Press.
57. Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28-39.
58. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
59. Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324-340.
60. 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.
61. Van de Voort, M. E. C., & Vonk, W. (1995). You don't die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaert, E-J van der Linden, A. Schenk & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 283-299). Hillsdale NJ: LEA
62. Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint in lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26, 979-1001.
63. Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context. Evidence from interrelated meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193-218.