1887
image of Electrophysiological insights into the role of proficiency in bilingual novel and conventional metaphor processing
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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
2021-06-14
2021-12-09
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, 39, 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, 1160, 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, 59, 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, 7, 559. doi:  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, 5, 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, 122, 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, 1, 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. doi:  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. doi:  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, 28, 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, 85, 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, 4, 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, 62, 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, 111, 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, 14, 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, 37, 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, 47, 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, 31, 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, 11, 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, 219, 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 Supplement5. 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, 42, 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, 1655, 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, 80, 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, 19, 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, 73, 31–42. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.20051.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: ERPs ; N400 ; metaphor comprehension ; sustained negativity ; bilingualism
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