Search

Abstract: Among different types of metaphors, lexical metaphors are special in that they have been highly lexicalized and often suggested to be processed like non-metaphorical words. The present study examined two types of Chinese metaphorical words which are conceptualized through body parts. One has both a metaphorical meaning and a literal meaning actively in use, with the former dominant over the latter, referred to as the Met+Lit words. The other has only metaphorical meaning, referred to as Met-only words. In two experiments, lexical metaphor words were presented following a body-related picture and participants judged whether the picture and word were semantically related (Experiment 1) or made lexical decision on the word ignoring the picture (Experiment 2). The N400 ERP responses showed a clear semantic priming effect for the Met+Lit words compared with the non-ambiguous neutral words, with latencies comparable to that in Met-only words in both experiments. The results were interpreted to indicate that the literal meaning as a subordinate meaning was activated during the early comprehension of conventional lexical metaphors, supporting the notion of dual access to metaphorical meaning and literal meaning in metaphor processing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

An ambiguity disadvantage (slower responses for ambiguous words, e.g., bank, than for unambiguous words) has been reported in semantic tasks (L. R. Gottlob, S. D. Goldinger, G. O. Stone, & G. C. Van Orden, 1999; Y. Hino, S. J. Lupker, & P. M. Pexman, 2002; C. D. Piercey & S. Joordens, 2000) and has been attributed to the meaning activation process. The authors tested an alternative explanation: The ambiguity disadvantage arises from the decision-making process in semantic tasks. The authors examined effects of ambiguity on unrelated trials in a relatedness decision task, because these trials are free from response competition created by ambiguous words on related trials. Results showed no ambiguity effect on unrelated trials (Experiments 2, 3c, and 5c) and an ambiguity disadvantage on related trials (Experiments 3a, 3b, 5a, and 5b). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the theoretical assumption that lexical ambiguity is not a homogeneous phenomenon, but rather that it is subdivided into two distinct types, namely homonymy and polysemy, the present study investigated whether these different types of lexical ambiguity are psychologically real. Four types of ambiguous words, homonymous words (e.g., “pen”), polysemous words with metaphorical extensions (e.g., “eye”), polysemous words with a count/mass metonymic extension (e.g., “turkey”), and polysemous words with a producer/product metonymic extension (e.g., “Dali”), were used in a cross-modal sentence-priming lexical decision task. Overall, the theoretical distinction between homonymy and polysemy was reflected in the results of the present study, which revealed differential processing depending on the type of ambiguity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]