1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

While novel and conventional metaphor comprehension has received much attention in the monolingual context, thus far little electrophysiological research has been conducted with a view to examining how bilingual speakers process metaphors in their non-native language (L2) as well as how L2 proficiency level might modulate such processes. The present study aims to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of novel and conventional metaphor comprehension in intermediate and advanced Chinese-English bilingual speakers. The participants performed a semantic decision task to English (L2) novel metaphoric, conventional metaphoric, literal, and anomalous word pairs. The results showed a graded N400 effect from literal utterances, to conventional metaphors, novel metaphors, and finally to anomalous utterances in both groups of participants, indicating that both types of metaphors were more cognitively taxing than literal utterances, irrespectively of L2 proficiency level. Additionally, between-group differences that were irrespective of utterance type were found in the N400 time frame, indicating more extended lexico-semantic access in the intermediate relative to the advanced group. Finally, in both groups of participants, an anterior sustained negativity was found in response to anomalous, novel metaphoric, and conventional metaphoric word pairs, thus suggesting a continuing difficulty of meaning integration.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
2021-06-14
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ardal, S., Donald, W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M.
    (1990) Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 391, 187–205. 10.1016/0093‑934X(90)90011‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(90)90011-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M.
    (2007) Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 11601, 69–81. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.034
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.034 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baggio, G., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P.
    (2008) Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 36–53. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F.
    (2016) Distangling Metaphor from Context: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 559.   10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blank, G. D.
    (1988) Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(3), 21–36. 10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.
    (2008) An alternative perspective on ‘semantic P600’ effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55–73. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bott, O.
    (2010) The processing of events. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.162
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.162 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braunstein, V., Ischebeck, A., Brunner, C., R. H., Stamenov, M., Neuper, C.
    (2012) Investigating the influence of proficiency on semantic processing in bilinguals: An ERP and ERD/S analysis. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 72(4), 421–438.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, H. J., Peng, X. S., & Zhao, Y. L.
    (2013) An ERP study on metaphor comprehension in the bilingual brain. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 505–517. 10.1515/cjal‑2013‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2013-0034 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen, M. X.
    (2014) Analyzing neural time series data. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9609.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9609.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C.
    (2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 958–968. 10.3758/BF03195780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780 [Google Scholar]
  13. de Bruin, A.
    (2019) Not All Bilinguals Are the Same: A Call for More Detailed Assessments and Descriptions of Bilingual Experiences. Behavioral Sciences, 9(33), 1–13. 10.3390/bs9030033
     https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030033 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Grauwe, S., Swain, A., Holcomb, P. J., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R.
    (2010) Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 1965–1984. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M.
    (2011) Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48(9), 1203–1207. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2011.01199.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B.
    (2002) The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 51, 175–197. 10.1017/S1366728902003012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M.
    (2007) Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146 (1), 75–84. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101 [Google Scholar]
  18. Friederici, A. D., von Cramon, D. Y., & Kotz, S. A.
    (1999) Language related brain potentials in patients with cortical and subcortical left hemisphere lesions. Brain, 1221, 1033–1047. 10.1093/brain/122.6.1033
     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.6.1033 [Google Scholar]
  19. Friedman, D., & Johnson, R.
    (2000) Event-related potential (ERP) studies of memory encoding and retrieval: A selective review. Microscopy Research and Technique, 51(1), 6–28. 10.1002/1097‑0029(20001001)51:1<6::AID‑JEMT2>3.0.CO;2‑R
     https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0029(20001001)51:1<6::AID-JEMT2>3.0.CO;2-R [Google Scholar]
  20. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P.
    (1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 331–355. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2527
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2527 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibbs, J. W., & Colston, H.
    (2012) Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldstein, A., Arzouan, Y., & Faust, M.
    (2012) Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates of metaphor conventionalization. Brain Lang, 123(2), 137–42. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.09.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grosjean, F.
    (1998) Studying bilingualism: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 131–149. 10.1017/S136672899800025X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672899800025X [Google Scholar]
  24. Hahne, A.
    (2001) What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 251–266. 10.1023/A:1010490917575
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010490917575 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoshino, N., & Thierry, G.
    (2012) Do Spanish-English bilinguals have their fingers in two pies – or is it their toes? An electrophysiological investigation of semantic access in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(9), 1–6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00009
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P., & Hurtado, E.
    (2010) Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters, 471(1), 48–52. 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jankowiak, K.
    (2019) Lexico-semantic processing in bilingual figurative language comprehension: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jankowiak, K., Naranowicz, M., & Rataj, K.
    (2021) Metaphors are like lenses: Electrophysiological correlates of novel meaning processing in bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism.   10.1177/1367006921996820
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006921996820 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., & Naskręcki, R.
    (2017) To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PLoS ONE, 12(4): e0175578.   10.1371/journal.pone.0175578
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175578 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kapa, L. L., & Colombo, J.
    (2013) Attentional control in early and later bilingual children. Cognitive Development, 281, 233–246. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W.
    (2003) Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 851, 1–36. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00548‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kotz, S. A., Rothermich, K., & Schmidt-Kassow, M.
    (2012) Sentence comprehension in healthy and brain-damaged populations. InM. Faust. (Ed.), The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language (pp. 760–777). Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781118432501.ch37
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118432501.ch37 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J.
    (2003) Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relations within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129. 10.1016/S0926‑6410(03)00086‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00086-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D.
    (2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 41, 463–470. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01560‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2011) Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in theN400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 621, 621–647. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A.
    (1983) Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11(5), 539–550. 10.3758/BF03196991
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196991 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kutas, M., Hillyard, S. A., & Gazzaniga, M.
    (1988) Processing of semantic anomaly by right and left hemisphere of commissurtomy patients. Brain, 1111, 553–576. 10.1093/brain/111.3.553
     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/111.3.553 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R.
    (2006) Psycholinguistic electrified II (1994–2005). InM. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher. (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Second Edition (pp. 659–724). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑012369374‑7/50018‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lai, V., & Curran, T.
    (2013) ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127 (3), 484–496. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lai, V., Curran, T., & Menn, L.
    (2009) Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284 (11), 145–155. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lemhofer, K., & Broersma, M.
    (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced earners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luck, S. J.
    (2005) An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Luk, G., De Sa, E., & Bialystok, E.
    (2011) Is there a relation between onset age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 141, 588–595. 10.1017/S1366728911000010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mecklinger, A.
    (2000) Interfacing mind and brain: A neurocognitive model of recognition memory. Psychophysiology, 371, 565–582. 10.1111/1469‑8986.3750565
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3750565 [Google Scholar]
  45. Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J.
    (2009) Masked repetition and translation priming in second language learners: A window on the time-course of form and meaning activation using ERPs. Psychophysiology, 46 (3), 551–565. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2009.00784.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00784.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Obert, A., Gierski, F., & Caillies, S.
    (2018) He catapulted his words from the dais: An ERP investigation of novel verbal metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 471, 59–70. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.02.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R.
    (2005) An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1212–1228. 10.1162/0898929055002436
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929055002436 [Google Scholar]
  48. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J.
    (1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and languages, 311, 785–804. 10.1016/0749‑596X(92)90039‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z [Google Scholar]
  49. Paczynski, M., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G.
    (2014) When events change their nature: The neurocognitive mechanisms underlying aspectual coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(9), 1905–1917. 10.1162/jocn_a_00638
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00638 [Google Scholar]
  50. Paller, K. A., Voss, J. L., & Boehm, S. G.
    (2007) Validating neural correlates of familiarity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 243–250. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  51. Paradis, M.
    (2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rossi, S., Gugler, M., Friederici, A., & Hahne, A.
    (2006) The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T.
    (2007) Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 111, 251–257. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rutter, B., Kroger, S., Hill, H., Windmann, S., Hermann, C., & Abraham, A.
    (2012) Can clouds dance? Part 2: An ERP investigation of passive conceptual expansion. Brain and Cognition, 80(3), 301–310. 10.1016/j.bandc.2012.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Salthouse, T. A., & Hedden, T.
    (2002) Interpreting reaction time measures in between-group comparisons. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(7), 858–872. 10.1076/jcen.24.7.858.8392
     https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.24.7.858.8392 [Google Scholar]
  56. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Canal, P., & Heredia, R.
    (2019) Event- related potentials in monolingual and bilingual non-literal language processing. InJ. Schwieter. (Ed.), The Handbook of the Neuroscience of Multilingualism (pp. 508–529). Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119387725.ch25
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119387725.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  57. Su, C., Huang, S. M., & Chen, Y. J.
    (2017) Automatic detection and interpretation of nominal metaphor based on the theory of meaning. Neurocomputing, 2191, 300–311. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.09.030
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.09.030 [Google Scholar]
  58. Swick, D., Kutas, M., & Knight, R. T.
    (1998) Prefrontal lesions eliminate the LPC but do not affect the N400 during sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement51. 29.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Tang, X. M., Qi, S. Q., Jia, X. J., Wang, B. T., & Ren, W.
    (2017a) Comprehension of scientific metaphors: Complementary processes revealed by ERP. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 421, 12–22. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2017b) The temporal dynamics underlying the comprehension of scientific metaphors and poetic Metaphors. Brain Research, 16551, 33–40. 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., & Stewart, R. V.
    (2002) Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain and Language, 801, 488–509. 10.1006/brln.2001.2610
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2610 [Google Scholar]
  62. Thornhill, D. E., & Van Petten, C.
    (2012) Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 382–392. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M.
    (1991) Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open and closed class words. Memory and Cognition, 191, 95–112. 10.3758/BF03198500
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198500 [Google Scholar]
  64. Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J.
    (1996) Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 231–256. 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wittenberg, E., Paczynski, M., Wiese, H., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G.
    (2014) The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 731, 31–42. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
Loading
Electrophysiological insights into the role of proficiency in bilingual novel and conventional metaphor processing
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 13, 163 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bilingualism; ERPs; metaphor comprehension; N400; sustained negativity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error