View More View Less
  • 1 University of Cologne
  • | 2 University of Cologne
Full access

Theories on metaphor and metonymy make different claims about the nature of the underlying processes in the computation of these two types of language use, i.e., whether they differ or not. Experimental investigations of metonymy and metaphor have generally not compared these two phenomena in a straightforward manner among others due to structural variability. To overcome this shortcoming, we conducted a study in German that used adjective–noun combinations to contrast metaphor and metonymy directly in an ERP-study during reading for comprehension. By combining three different nouns with one adjective in predicative position we construed adjective–noun pairs with literal (the baby was lively), metonymic (the eyes were lively) or metaphoric (the speed was lively) relations. The data revealed a more pronounced N400 for the metaphoric relations in comparison to the literal controls. We argue that the enhanced cost for metaphors reflects the activation process of two unrelated domains via mapping or extended predication. The metonymic adjective–noun pairs only showed a small trend to differ from the other two conditions. This might indicate that metonymies require mapping processes or shifts only within a single domain or domain matrix. Moreover, in contrast to previous studies, we did not find a Late Positivity. We explain this result with regard to different discourse representational consequences arising during combinatorial processing.

  • Aarts, Jan M. G. and Josepf P. Calbert. 1979. Metaphor and non-metaphor: The semantics of adjective–noun combinations. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Annaz, Dagmara, Jo Van Herwegen, Michael Thomas, Roza Fishman, Annette Karmiloff-Smith and Gabriella Rundblad. 2009. Comprehension of metaphor and metonymy in children with Williams syndrome. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 44. 962978.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ashby, Jane, Carlos Roncero, Roberto G. de Almeida and Stephen J. Agauas. 2017. The early processing of metaphors and similes: Evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71. 161168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bambini, Valentina, Chiara Bertini, Walter Schaeken, Alessandra Stella and Francesco Di Russo. 2016. Disentangling metaphor from context: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 559.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bambini, Valentina, Marta Ghio, Andrea Moro and Petra B. Schumacher. 2013. Differentiating among pragmatic uses of words through timed sensicality judgments: Metaphor, metonymy and approximation. Frontiers in Psychology 4. 938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In Dirven & Pörings (2002, 207–277).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bierwisch, Manfred. 1983. Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In R. Růžička and W. Motsch (eds.) Untersuchungen zur Semantik (Studia Grammatica 22). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 6199.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Bloom, Paul A. and Ira Fischler. 1980. Completion norms for 329 sentence contexts. Memory and Cognition 8. 631642.

  • Bons, Iris. 2009. Polysemie und Distribution: Zur Theorie und Methode einer korpusbasierten Semantik deutscher Adjektive. In I. Bons, G. Fritz and T. Gloning (eds.) Linguistische untersuchunge (vol. 1). Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bons, Iris. 2010. Zur Polysemie von Adjektiven. In I. Bons, T. Gloning and D. Kaltwaßser (eds.) Fest-Platte für Gerd Fritz. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Petra B. Schumacher. 2016. Towards a neurobiology of information structure. In C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds.) The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 581598.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brisard, Frank, Steven Frisson and Dominiek Sandra. 2001. Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Metaphor and Symbol 16. 87108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carston, Robyn. 2010a. Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: From a relevance theory perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22. 153180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carston, Robyn. 2010b. XIII-metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110. 295321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82. 407428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Copestake, Ann and Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12. 1567.

  • Coulson, Seana and Cyma van Petten. 2002. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition 30. 958968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coulson, Seana and Cyma van Petten. 2007. A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research 1146. 128145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 335370.

  • Croft, William. 2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Dirven & Pörings (2002, 161–206).

  • De Grauwe, Sophie, Abigail Swain, Phillip J. Holcomb, Tali Ditman and Gina R. Kuperberg. 2010. Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia 48. 19651984.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Dölling, Johannes. 1995. Ontological domains, semantic sorts and systematic ambiguity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43. 785807.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frisson, Steven and Lyn Frazier. 2005. Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language 53. 277291.

  • Frisson, Steven and Martin J. Pickering. 1999. The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25. 13661383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frisson, Steven and Martin J. Pickering. 2001. Figurative language processing in the underspecification model. Metaphor and Symbol 16. 149171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frisson, Steven and Martin J. Pickering. 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. 595613.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frisson, Steven, Martin J. Pickering and Brian McElree. 2011. The difficult mountain: Enriched composition in adjective–noun phrases. Pychonomic Bulletin and Review 18. 11721179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fritz, Gerd. 1995. Metonymische Muster und Metaphernfamilien. Bemerkungen zur Struktur und Geschichte der Verwendungsweisen von „scharf“. In G. Hindelang, E. Rolf and W. Zillig (eds.) Der Gebrauch der Sprache. Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 60. Geburtstag. Münster: Münster Lit. 77107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fritz, Gerd. 1998. Historische Semantik. Stuttgart & Weimar: JB Metzler.

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1990. Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 16. 5666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 183206.

  • Giora, Rachel. 2002. Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34. 487506.

  • Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 9296.

  • Gold, Rinat, Miriam Faust and Abraham Goldstein. 2010. Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in Asperger syndrome. Brain and Language 113. 124134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gunter, Thomas C., Angela D. Friederici and Herbert Schriefers. 2000. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 556568.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hopper, Paul J. and Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (Second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Huynh, Huynh and Leonard S. Feldt. 1970. Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 65. 15821589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The architecture of the language faculty (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Keller, Rudi and Ilja Kirschbaum. 2003. Bedeutungswandel: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keppel, Geoffrey. 1991. Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Koch, Peter. 2016. Meaning change and semantic shifts. In P. Juvonen and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) The lexical typology of semantic shifts. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 2166.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 3777.

  • Kutas, M. and S. A. Hillyard. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307. 161163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kutas, Marta and Kara D. Federmeier. 2011. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). The Annual Review of Psychology 62. 621647.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lai, Vicky Tzuyin, Tim Curran and Lise Menn. 2009. Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 1284. 145155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Makeig, Scott, Marissa Westerfield, Tzyy-Ping Jung, Sonia Enghoff, Jeanne Townsend, Eric Courchesne and Terrence J. Sejnowski. 2002. Dynamic brain sources of visual evoked responses. Science 295. 690694.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McElree, Brian, Steven Frisson and Martin J. Pickering. 2006. Deferred interpretations: Why starting Dickens is taxing but reading Dickens isn’t. Cognitive Science 30. 181192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Murphy, Gregory L. and Jane. M. Andrew. 1993. The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language 32. 301319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noveck, Ira A., Maryse Bianco and Alain Castry. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16. 109121.

  • Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1979. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg (eds.). 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Partee, Barbara H. 2007. Compositionality and coercion in semantics: The dynamics of adjective meaning. In I. K. G. Bouma and J. Zwarts (eds.) Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 145161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Pynte, Joël, Mirelle Besson, Fabrice-Henri Robichon and Jézabel Poli. 1996. The timecourse of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language 55. 293316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Récanati, François. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19. 207232.

  • Rundblad, Gabriella and Dagmara Annaz. 2010. The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Autism 14. 2946.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B. 2011. The hepatitis called…: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. In J. Meibauer and M. Steinbach (eds.) Experimental pragmatics/semantics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 199219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B. 2013. When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Toward a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology 4. 677.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B. 2014. Content and context in incremental processing: The “ham sandwich” revisited. Philosophical Studies 168. 151165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B. 2018. Metonymy. In C. Cummins and N. Katsos (eds.) The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B., Jana Backhaus and Manuel Dangl. 2015. Backward- and forwardlooking potential of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1746.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumacher, Petra B. and Yu-Chen Hung. 2012. Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language 67. 295310.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86. 153171.

  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. J. Gibbs (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 84105.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Herwegen, Jo, Dagmara Dimitriou and Gabriella Rundblad. 2013. Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities 34. 13001311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Petten, Cyma and Marta Kutas. 1990. Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory and Cognition 18. 380393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weckerly, Jill and Marta Kutas. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36. 559570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weiland, Hanna, Valentina Bambini and Petra B. Schumacher. 2014. The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8. 583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weiland-Breckle, Hanna and Petra B. Schumacher. 2017. Artist-for-work metonymy. Type clash or underspecification? The Mental Lexicon 12. 219233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wolff, Susann, Matthias Schlesewsky, Masako Hirotani and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 107. 133157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Editors

Editor-in-Chief: András Cser

Editor: Éva Dékány

Review Editor: Tamás Halm

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé / Université Paris Diderot
  • Željko Bošković / University of Connecticut
  • Marcel den Dikken / Eötvös Loránd University; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Elly van Gelderen / Arizona State University
  • Anders Holmberg / Newcastle University
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt / University of Cambridge
  • Dániel Z. Kádár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • István Kenesei / University of Szeged; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Anikó Lipták / Leiden University
  • Katalin Mády / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gereon Müller / Leipzig University
  • Csaba Pléh / Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central European University
  • Giampaolo Salvi / Eötvös Loránd University
  • Irina Sekerina / College of Staten Island CUNY
  • Péter Siptár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gregory Stump / University of Kentucky
  • Peter Svenonius / University of Tromsø
  • Anne Tamm / Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
  • Akira Watanabe / University of Tokyo
  • Jeroen van de Weijer / Shenzhen University

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Address: Benczúr u. 33. HU–1068 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 351 0413; (+36 1) 321 4830 ext. 154
Fax: (36 1) 322 9297
E-mail: ala@nytud.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  • Bibliographie Linguistique/Linguistic Bibliography
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • SCOPUS
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • LinguisList

 

2020

 

Total Cites

219

WoS

Journal
Impact Factor

0,523

Rank by

Linguistics 150/193 (Q4)

Impact Factor

 

Impact Factor

0,432

without

Journal Self Cites

5 Year

0,500

Impact Factor

Journal 

0,72

Citation Indicator

 

Rank by Journal 

Linguistics 144/259 (Q3)

Citation Indicator 

 

Citable

19

Items

Total

19

Articles

Total

0

Reviews

Scimago

10

H-index

Scimago

0,295

Journal Rank

Scimago

Cultural Studies Q1

Quartile Score

Language and Linguistics Q2

 

Linguistics and Language Q2

 

Literature and Literary Theory Q1

Scopus

72/87=0,8

Scite Score

Scopus

Literature and Literary Theory 42/825 (Q1)

Scite Score Rank

Cultural Studies 247/1037 (Q1)

Scopus

1,022

SNIP

Days from 

58

sumbission

to acceptance

Days from 

68

acceptance

to publication

Acceptance

51%

Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
155
Impact Factor 0,222
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,156
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,322
Immediacy
Index
0,870
Citable
Items
23
Total
Articles
23
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
11,2
Citing
Half-Life
16,6
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00006
Article Influence
Score
0,056
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,00780
Average
IF
Percentile
9,358
Scimago
H-index
9
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,281
Scopus
Scite Score
53/85=0,6
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cultural Studies 293/1002 (Q2)
Literature and Literary Theory 60/823(Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
0,768
Acceptance
Rate
25%

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 544 EUR / 680 USD
Print + online subscription: 624 EUR / 780 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 558 EUR / 696 USD
Print + online subscription: 638 EUR / 796 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Linguistica Academica
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2017
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 68
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2559-8201 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1016 (Online)