2010
DOI: 10.3758/pbr.17.3.400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of working memory in the metaphor interference effect

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
1
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
29
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the authors, two types of factors are associated with the ability to comprehend and produce metaphors: information processing factors related to the executive mechanisms of WM, and experiential factors related to crystallized verbal knowledge. Consistently, Pierce et al ( 2010 ) showed that high WM skills are associated with more accurate and faster recognition of the non-literal meaning of metaphorical statements.…”
Section: The Role Of Individual Differences In Figurative Language Prmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to the authors, two types of factors are associated with the ability to comprehend and produce metaphors: information processing factors related to the executive mechanisms of WM, and experiential factors related to crystallized verbal knowledge. Consistently, Pierce et al ( 2010 ) showed that high WM skills are associated with more accurate and faster recognition of the non-literal meaning of metaphorical statements.…”
Section: The Role Of Individual Differences In Figurative Language Prmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Surprisingly enough, this new wave of studies on individual variability has predominantly concerned literal language almost ignoring figurative language, despite its pervasiveness. The few studies on individual differences in figurative language comprehension have predominantly concerned the comprehension and/or production of metaphorical sentences in adults (e.g., Kazmerski et al, 2003 ; Chiappe and Chiappe, 2007 ; Pierce et al, 2010 ) and/or children and adolescents (e.g., Nippold and Martin, 1989 ; Johnson, 1991 ; Nippold et al, 2001 ; Qualls and Harris, 2003 ; Qualls et al, 2003 ; Carriedo et al, 2015 ). Metaphor comprehension requires a high level of intellectual ability, processing capacity and inhibitory control (e.g., Kintsch, 2000 , 2001 ; Kazmerski et al, 2003 ; Carriedo et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: The Role Of Individual Differences In Figurative Language Prmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variuje vzhฤพadom na kognitรญvne, osobnostnรฉ, kultรบrne aj sociรกlne charakteristiky (napr. Kรถvecses, 2005;Neumann, 2001;Lakoff & Kรถvecses, 1987;Ansah, 2014, Kazmerski, Blasko, & Dessalegn, 2003Chiappe & Chiappe, 2007;Pierce & MacLaren, 2010;Glucksberg, Gildea, & Bookin, 1982;Colston & Katz, 2004) a metaforickรฝ jazyk mรก tieลพ ลกpeciรกlne konzekvencie u prijรญmateฤพa sprรกvy (Fetterman et al, 2016;Landau, Meier, & Keefer, 2010;Sopory & Dillard, 2002). Napriek tomu, ลพe vรฝvinu jazyka sa venovalo uลพ veฤพa priestoru, vรฝvin figuratรญvneho jazyka, ktorรฉho prototypom je metafora a metonymia, si vyslรบลพil iba mรกlo pozornosti.…”
Section: Abstract: Metaphor Comprehension Metonymy Comprehension Funclassified
“…Second, although previous work has shown that executive control is necessary for resolving lexical ambiguity, to our knowledge no study has investigated how both familiarity and context jointly influence executive control demands during metaphor processing. Finally, past studies have investigated metaphors presented in isolation (e.g., Mashal et al, 2007 ; Mashal and Faust, 2009 ; Goldstein et al, 2012 ; Mashal, 2013 ) or used secondary tasks, which could compromise the naturalness of comprehension (e.g., Kazmerski et al, 2003 ; Pierce et al, 2010 ; Goldstein et al, 2012 ; Lai and Curran, 2013 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%