Untitled

Temple, Jon G.; Honeck, Richard P.

doi:10.1023/a:1023287420088

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results shed light on a discussion regarding the process of access to the figurative meaning of proverbs (Temple and Honeck, 1999; Keysar et al, 2000). At this point in the study we can already safely conclude that Nissim cannot access visual aspects of concepts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Researchers of the process of access to proverbs' figurative meaning debate as to whether access to the figurative meaning is obligatorily preceded by a stage of access to the literal meaning of the concept (Temple and Honeck, 1999; Keysar et al, 2000). Nissim's good comprehension of proverbs with highly imageable literal meanings is thus very informative in this debate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A selective deficit in imageable concepts: a window to the organization of the conceptual system

Gvion

Friedmann

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nissim, a 64 years old Hebrew-speaking man who sustained an ischemic infarct in the left occipital lobe, exhibited an intriguing pattern. He could hold a deep and fluent conversation about abstract and complex issues, such as the social risks in unemployment, but failed to retrieve imageable words such as ball, spoon, carrot, or giraffe. A detailed study of the words he could and could not retrieve, in tasks of picture naming, tactile naming, and naming to definition, indicated that whereas he was able to retrieve abstract words, he had severe difficulties when trying to retrieve imageable words. The same dissociation also applied for proper names—he could retrieve names of people who have no visual image attached to their representation (such as the son of the biblical Abraham), but could not name people who had a visual image (such as his own son, or Barack Obama). When he tried to produce imageable words, he mainly produced perseverations and empty speech, and some semantic paraphasias. He did not produce perseverations when he tried to retrieve abstract words. This suggests that perseverations may occur when the phonological production system produces a word without proper activation in the semantic lexicon. Nissim evinced a similar dissociation in comprehension—he could understand abstract words and sentences but failed to understand sentences with imageable words, and to match spoken imageable words to pictures or to semantically related imageable words. He was able to understand proverbs with imageable literal meaning but abstract figurative meaning. His comprehension was impaired also in tasks of semantic associations of pictures, pointing to a conceptual, rather than lexical source of the deficit. His visual perception as well as his phonological input and output lexicons and buffers (assessed by auditory lexical decision, word and sentence repetition, and writing to dictation) were intact, supporting a selective conceptual system impairment. He was able to retrieve gestures for objects and pictures he saw, indicating that his access to concepts often sufficed for the activation of the motoric information but did not suffice for access to the entry in the semantic lexicon. These results show that imageable concepts can be selectively impaired, and shed light on the organization of conceptual-semantic system.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A selective deficit in imageable concepts: a window to the organization of the conceptual system

Gvion

Friedmann

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recent studies investigating other types of language have provided growing evidence that figurative expressions often tend to be more difficult to process than literal expressions. These include studies on the processing of idioms (Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988), proverbs (Honeck, Welge, & Temple, 1998; Temple & Honeck, 1999), and irony (Dews & Winner, 1999; Giora, Fein, & Schwartz, 1998; Filik & Moxey, 2010; Schwoebel, Dews, Winner, & Srinivas, 2000). Even in the realm of metaphor, several recent studies using electrophysiology have suggested that the processing of metaphorical expressions is more effortful than the processing of literal expressions (Coulson & Van Petten, 2002, 2007; De Grauwe, Swain, Holcomb, Ditman, & Kuperberg, 2010; Lai, Curran, & Menn, 2009; Tartter, Gomes, Dubrovsky, Molholm, & Stewart, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing.

Lowder¹,

Gordon²

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has given inconsistent evidence about whether familiar metonyms are more difficult to process than literal expressions. In two eye-tracking while reading experiments, we tested the hypothesis that the difficulty associated with processing metonyms would depend on sentence structure. Experiment 1 examined comprehension of familiar place-for-institution metonyms (e.g., college) when they were an argument of the main verb and showed that they are more difficult to process in a figurative context (e.g., offended the college) than in a literal context (e.g., photographed the college). Experiment 2 demonstrated that when they are arguments of the main verb, familiar metonyms are more difficult to process than frequency-and-length-matched nouns that refer to people (e.g., offended the leader), but that this difficulty was reduced when the metonym appeared as part of an adjunct phrase (e.g., offended the honor of the college). The results support the view that figurative-language processing is moderated by sentence structure. When the metonym was an argument of the verb, the results were consistent with the pattern predicted by the indirect-access model of figurative-language comprehension. In contrast, when the metonym was part of an adjunct phrase, the results were consistent with the pattern predicted by the direct-access model.

show abstract

“…Given these findings, the indirect-access model was challenged by a direct-access model (Gibbs, 1994; Gibbs & Gerrig, 1989; Glucksberg, 1991, 2003), according to which comprehenders use contextual information to immediately select the intended meaning of a word or expression, so that priority in processing is not necessarily given to either the literal or semantically complex interpretation. While these findings led many psycholinguists to see the indirect-access model as discredited, a number of studies investigating a variety of figurative language forms have continued to produce patterns of results that are consistent with its prediction that semantically complex expressions should take more time to process than literal expressions (e.g., Coulson & Van Petten, 2002, 2007; De Grauwe, Swain, Holcomb, Ditman, & Kuperberg, 2010; Dews & Winner, 1999; Filik & Moxey, 2010; Giora, Fein, & Schwartz, 1998; Honeck, Welge, & Temple, 1998; Lai, Curran, & Menn, 2009; Lowder & Gordon, 2012, 2013; Schwoebel, Dews, Winner, & Srinivas, 2000; Tartter, Gomes, Dubrovsky, Molholm, & Stewart, 2002; Temple & Honeck, 1999). These findings indicate that evidence about processing time does not necessarily lead to a rejection of the indirect-access model (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

The manuscript that we finished: Structural separation reduces the cost of complement coercion.

Lowder¹,

Gordon²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two eye-tracking experiments examined the effects of sentence structure on the processing of complement coercion, in which an event-selecting verb combines with a complement that represents an entity (e.g., began the memo). Previous work has demonstrated that these expressions impose a processing cost, which has been attributed to the need to type-shift the entity into an event in order for the sentence to be interpretable (e.g., began writing the memo). Both experiments showed that the magnitude of the coercion cost was reduced when the verb and complement appeared in separate clauses (e.g., The memo that was begun by the secretary; What the secretary began was the memo) compared to when the constituents appeared together in the same clause. The moderating effect of sentence structure on coercion is similar to effects that have been reported for the processing of two other types of semantically complex expressions (inanimate subject-verb integration and metonymy). We propose that sentence structure influences the depth at which complex semantic relationships are computed. When the constituents that create the need for a complex semantic interpretation appear in a single clause, readers experience processing difficulty stemming from the need to detect and/or resolve the semantic mismatch. In contrast, the need to engage in additional processing is reduced when the expression is established across a clause boundary or other structure that deemphasizes the complex relationship.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 27 publications

References 35 publications

A selective deficit in imageable concepts: a window to the organization of the conceptual system

A selective deficit in imageable concepts: a window to the organization of the conceptual system

It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing.

The manuscript that we finished: Structural separation reduces the cost of complement coercion.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About