1887
Volume 23, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Meir’s (2010) (DMC) states the use of iconic signs in metaphors is restricted to signs that preserve the structural correspondence between the articulators and the concrete source domain and between the concrete and metaphorical domains. We investigated ASL signers’ comprehension of English metaphors whose translations complied with the DMC () or violated the DMC (). Metaphors were preceded by the ASL translation of the English verb, an unrelated sign, or a still video. Participants made sensibility judgments. Response times (RTs) were faster for DMC-Compliant sentences with verb primes compared to unrelated primes or the still baseline. RTs for DMC-Violation sentences were longer when preceded by verb primes. We propose the structured iconicity of the ASL verbs primed the semantic features involved in the iconic mapping and these primed semantic features facilitated comprehension of DMC-Compliant metaphors and slowed comprehension of DMC-Violation metaphors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00045.sch
2020-10-30
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Basnight-Brown, Dana & Jeanette Altarriba
    2007 Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition35(5). 953–965. 10.3758/BF03193468
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193468 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boroditsky, Lera
    2001 Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology43(1). 1–22. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boroditsky, Lera & Michael Ramscar
    2002 The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science13(2). 185–189. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00434
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00434 [Google Scholar]
  4. Emmorey, Karen
    2014 Iconicity as structure-mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 20130301. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gibbs, Raymond W. & Teenie Matlock
    2008 Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. InRaymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 161–176. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hosemann, Jana, Nivedita Mani, Annika Herrmann, Markus Steinbach & Nicole Altvater-Mackensen
    2020 Signs activate their written word translation in deaf adults: An ERP study on cross-modal co-activation in German Sign Language. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics5(1). 57. 10.5334/gjgl.1014
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1014 [Google Scholar]
  7. Jamrozik, Anja, Marguerite McQuire, Eileen R. Cardillo & Anjan Chatterjee
    2016 Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review23(4). 1080–1089. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0861‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kubus, Okan, Agnes Villwock, Jill P. Morford & Christian Rathmann
    2015 Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics36. 831–854. 10.1017/S0142716413000520
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000520 [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee, Brittany, Gabriela Meade, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
    2019 ERP evidence for co-activation of English words during recognition of American Sign Language signs. Brain Sciences9(6). 148. 10.3390/brainsci9060148
    https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9060148 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Meade, Gabriela, Katherine Midgley, Zed Sevickova Sehyr, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
    2017 Implicit co-activation of American Sign Language in deaf readers: An ERP study. Brain and Language170. 50–61. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2017.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Meir, Irit
    2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language86. 865–896. 10.1353/lan.2010.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0044 [Google Scholar]
  13. Midgley, Katherine J., Phillip J. Holcomb & Jonathan Grainger
    2009 Language effects in second language learners and proficient bilinguals investigated with event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics22(3). 281–300. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Morford, Jill P., Erin Wilkinson, Agnes Villwock, Pilar Piñar & Judith F. Kroll
    2011 When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations?Cognition118(2). 286–292. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mott, Megan, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
    2020 Cross-modal translation priming and iconicity effects in deaf signers and hearing learners of American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–13 (online first). 10.1017/S1366728919000889
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000889 [Google Scholar]
  16. Sato, Manami, Amy J. Schafer & Ben K. Bergen
    2015 Metaphor priming in sentence production: Concrete pictures affect abstract language production. Acta Psychologica156. 136–142. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  18. Van Hell, Janet G., Ellen Ormel, Jay van der Loop & Daan Hermans
    2009Cross-language interaction in unimodal and bimodal bilinguals. Paper presented at the16th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Cracow, Poland.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Villameriel, Saul, Patricia Dias, Brendan Costello & Manuel Carreiras
    2016 Cross-language and cross-modal activation in hearing bimodal bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language87. 59–70. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Wilson, Nicole L. & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.
    2007 Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science31(4). 721–731. 10.1080/15326900701399962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399962 [Google Scholar]
  21. Wilcox, Phyllis
    2004 A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 197–222. 10.1515/cogl.2004.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.008 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00045.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00045.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bimodal bilingualism , iconicity , metaphor and sign language
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