Connecting the research fields of lexical ambiguity and figures of speech

Polysemy effects for conventional metaphors and metonyms

Bernadet Jager, Alexandra A. Cleland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The current studies investigated the processing and storage of lexical metaphors and metonyms by combining two existing methodologies from ambiguity research: counting the number of senses (as in e.g., Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) and determining the relationship between those senses (as in e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). We have called these two types of ambiguity ‘numerical polysemy’ and ‘relational polysemy’. Studies employing a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) and semantic categorization task (Experiment 2) compared processing of metaphorical and non-metaphorical words while controlling for number of senses. The effects of relational polysemy were investigated in more detail with a further lexical decision study (Experiment 3). Results showed a metaphor advantage and metonymy disadvantage which conflict with earlier findings of reverse patterns (e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). The fact that both conventional lexical metaphors and metonyms can incur either processing advantages or disadvantages strongly suggests they are not inherently stored differently in the mental lexicon.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133-151
Number of pages19
JournalThe Mental Lexicon
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Metaphor
field research
metaphor
experiment
Research
Semantics
semantics
methodology
Field Research
Figures of Speech
Experiment
Conventional Metaphor
Lexical Ambiguity
Polysemy

Keywords

  • polysemy
  • ambiguity
  • homonymy
  • figurative
  • lexical decision
  • semantic categorization
  • mental lexicon
  • metaphors
  • metonyms
  • literal

Cite this

@article{996793e457f24ec091790d6562cd7096,
title = "Connecting the research fields of lexical ambiguity and figures of speech: Polysemy effects for conventional metaphors and metonyms",
abstract = "The current studies investigated the processing and storage of lexical metaphors and metonyms by combining two existing methodologies from ambiguity research: counting the number of senses (as in e.g., Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) and determining the relationship between those senses (as in e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). We have called these two types of ambiguity ‘numerical polysemy’ and ‘relational polysemy’. Studies employing a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) and semantic categorization task (Experiment 2) compared processing of metaphorical and non-metaphorical words while controlling for number of senses. The effects of relational polysemy were investigated in more detail with a further lexical decision study (Experiment 3). Results showed a metaphor advantage and metonymy disadvantage which conflict with earlier findings of reverse patterns (e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). The fact that both conventional lexical metaphors and metonyms can incur either processing advantages or disadvantages strongly suggests they are not inherently stored differently in the mental lexicon.",
keywords = "polysemy , ambiguity, homonymy, figurative, lexical decision, semantic categorization, mental lexicon, metaphors, metonyms, literal",
author = "Bernadet Jager and Cleland, {Alexandra A.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1075/ml.10.1.05jag",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "133--151",
journal = "The Mental Lexicon",
issn = "1871-1340",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Connecting the research fields of lexical ambiguity and figures of speech

T2 - Polysemy effects for conventional metaphors and metonyms

AU - Jager, Bernadet

AU - Cleland, Alexandra A.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The current studies investigated the processing and storage of lexical metaphors and metonyms by combining two existing methodologies from ambiguity research: counting the number of senses (as in e.g., Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) and determining the relationship between those senses (as in e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). We have called these two types of ambiguity ‘numerical polysemy’ and ‘relational polysemy’. Studies employing a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) and semantic categorization task (Experiment 2) compared processing of metaphorical and non-metaphorical words while controlling for number of senses. The effects of relational polysemy were investigated in more detail with a further lexical decision study (Experiment 3). Results showed a metaphor advantage and metonymy disadvantage which conflict with earlier findings of reverse patterns (e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). The fact that both conventional lexical metaphors and metonyms can incur either processing advantages or disadvantages strongly suggests they are not inherently stored differently in the mental lexicon.

AB - The current studies investigated the processing and storage of lexical metaphors and metonyms by combining two existing methodologies from ambiguity research: counting the number of senses (as in e.g., Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) and determining the relationship between those senses (as in e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). We have called these two types of ambiguity ‘numerical polysemy’ and ‘relational polysemy’. Studies employing a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) and semantic categorization task (Experiment 2) compared processing of metaphorical and non-metaphorical words while controlling for number of senses. The effects of relational polysemy were investigated in more detail with a further lexical decision study (Experiment 3). Results showed a metaphor advantage and metonymy disadvantage which conflict with earlier findings of reverse patterns (e.g., Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007). The fact that both conventional lexical metaphors and metonyms can incur either processing advantages or disadvantages strongly suggests they are not inherently stored differently in the mental lexicon.

KW - polysemy

KW - ambiguity

KW - homonymy

KW - figurative

KW - lexical decision

KW - semantic categorization

KW - mental lexicon

KW - metaphors

KW - metonyms

KW - literal

U2 - 10.1075/ml.10.1.05jag

DO - 10.1075/ml.10.1.05jag

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 133

EP - 151

JO - The Mental Lexicon

JF - The Mental Lexicon

SN - 1871-1340

IS - 1

ER -