Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: an eye movement study of sentence reading

Abstract

Metaphors are common elements of language that allow us to creatively stretch the limits of word meaning. However, metaphors vary in their degree of novelty, which determines whether people must create new meanings on-line or retrieve previously known metaphorical meanings from memory. Such variations affect the degree to which general cognitive capacities such as executive control are required for successful comprehension. We investigated whether individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing using eye movement measures of reading. Thirty-nine participants read sentences including metaphors or idioms, another form of figurative language that is more likely to rely on meaning retrieval. They also completed the AX-CPT, a domain-general executive control task. In Experiment 1, we examined sentences containing metaphorical or literal uses of verbs, presented with or without prior context. In Experiment 2, we examined sentences containing idioms or literal phrases for the same participants to determine whether the link to executive control was qualitatively similar or different to Experiment 1. When metaphors were low familiar, all people read verbs used as metaphors more slowly than verbs used literally (this difference was smaller for high familiar metaphors). Executive control capacity modulated this pattern in that high executive control readers spent more time reading verbs when a prior context forced a particular interpretation (metaphorical or literal), and they had faster total metaphor reading times when there was a prior context. Interestingly, executive control did not relate to idiom processing for the same readers. Here, all readers had faster total reading times for high familiar idioms than literal phrases. Thus, executive control relates to metaphor but not idiom processing for these readers, and for the particular metaphor and idiom reading manipulations presented.

Are figurative interpretations of idioms directly retrieved, compositionally built, or both? Evidence from eye movement measures of reading.

“…19 processing cost that slowed on-line comprehension. Thus, high decomposable idioms may have been functioning more like novel metaphorical language, where the figurative interpretation must be computed on demand (e.g., Columbus et al, 2015).…”

Metaphorical language processing and amygdala activation in L1 and L2

“…Collectively, this activation pattern in prefrontal areas is suggestive of simultaneous activation of different lexico-semantic representations, i.e., the metaphorical and part of the literal meaning, along with selection of the intended meaning. Indeed, a link between individual differences in executive control and metaphor comprehension has also been reported in an eye-tracking study (Columbus et al, 2015).…”

Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading

“…These differences were moderated by familiarity: for highly familiar metaphors, the differences in gaze durations were smaller than for unfamiliar metaphors (Columbus, et al, 2015).…”

“…Based on the evidence discussed above and the predictions provided by DMT, we hypothesized that deliberate metaphors would elicit longer gaze durations than both non-deliberate metaphors and non-metaphorical words (H1). Since metaphors have been overall found to increase reading times (Columbus, et al, 2015;Olkoniemi, et al, 2016), we also expected a gaze duration difference between nondeliberate metaphors and non-metaphorical words. We hypothesized that non-deliberate metaphors would elicit longer gaze durations than non-metaphorical words (H2).…”

“…Using eye-tracking, previous research has shown that metaphorical sentences are read slower than literal sentences (Columbus, et al, 2015;Olkoniemi, Ranta, & Kaakinen, 2016).…”