EXPLORING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN BILINGUALS: THE METAPHOR INTERFERENCE EFFECT A Thesis by FRANCISCO EMIGDIO MARTINEZ, JR Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requireme nts for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2003 Major Subject: Psychology
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EXPLORING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN BILINGUALS:
THE METAPHOR INTERFERENCE EFFECT
A Thesis
by
FRANCISCO EMIGDIO MARTINEZ, JR
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requireme nts for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
December 2003
Major Subject: Psychology
EXPLORING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN BILINGUALS:
THE METAPHOR INTERFERENCE EFFECT
A Thesis
by
FRANCISCO EMIGDIO MARTINEZ, JR
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved as to style and content by: ___________________________ ___________________________
Jyotsna Vaid Heather Bortfeld (Chair of Committee) (Member) ___________________________ ___________________________
Paul Christensen Steve Rholes (Member) (Head of Department)
December 2003
Major Subject: Psychology
iii
ABSTRACT
Exploring Figurative Language Processing in Bilinguals:
The Metaphor Interference Effect. (December 2003)
Francisco Emigdio Martinez, Jr., B.A., Texas A&M International University
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jyotsna Vaid
While studies suggest that figurative, or non-literal, meanings are automatically activated
in single language users, little is known about how language proficiency may influence the
automaticity of non-literal meaning activation. The present research sought to address this issue
by comparing figurative language activation in Spanish-English bilinguals. An interference
paradigm (Glucksberg, Gildea & Bookin, 1982) was used in which participants were to judge the
literal truth or falsity of statements of the form Some Xs are Ys. Judgments on this task are
typically slower to statements that, though literally false, are metaphorically true (e.g., Some
lawyers are sharks), suggesting that metaphorical meanings are non-optionally activated (at least
in single language users). The present research involved four experiments: Experiment 1
conducted with English-speaking monolinguals, replicated the metaphor interference effect; in
Experiment 2 the effect was replicated in English-dominant and in balanced bilinguals tested
only in English. Experiment 3 conducted with bilinguals tested in both languages, showed that
the metaphor interference effect was not obtained in either language in English-dominant
bilinguals and was obtained in Spanish only in the balanced group. The findings from
Experiments 1 and 2 support the view that nonliteral (metaphoric) meanings are automatically
accessed in monolinguals and bilinguals alike. Experiment 3 involved a fewer number of
metaphor trials per language, raising the possibility that this procedural difference may have led
iv
to a weakening of the metaphor interference effect. This possibility was directly tested in
Experiment 4, conducted with English-speaking monolinguals presented with the same number
of metaphor trials as the bilinguals in Experiment 3. The results showed a clear metaphor
interference, even with the reduced number of trials. As such, the findings of Experiment 3,
where a metaphor interference effect was obtained only for Spanish items, are somewhat
equivocal: at face value, they suggest that the effect is modulated by language proficiency.
Alternatively, the metaphor interference effect may turn out to be present in both languages, but
may simply have been obscured by variability owing to the small sample size per language order.
Which of these two interpretations turns out to be valid will depend on additional testing.
Implications of the present findings for theories of the organization of the bilingual
representational system are addressed.
v
I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends. Without their support and encouragement,
I would never have been able to pursue the goal.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would never have reached the level it has without the guidance of my advisor,
Dr. Jyotsna Vaid. She thoughtfully responded to the many issues that arose during this project.
Her tutelage has had a substantial impact on my development, and I hope that as my research
career continues to develop she will appreciate that the fruits of my labor are also the fruits of her
labor.
I would like to extend my appreciation to the rest of my committee as well as to Dr.
Roberto Heredia, whose extensive comments and discussion enabled me to substantially improve
my final product.
Finally, none of my successes, including this thesis, would be possible without the grace
of God.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. x INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 Figurative Language: Peripheral vs. Central?.................................................................. 2 Models of Figurative Language Processing..................................................................... 3 Processing Priority of Literal vs. Non-Literal Meaning: Methodological Issues ............ 4 Developmental Perspectives on Figurative Language Competence ................................ 7 Figurative Language Processing in a Second Language Users and Bilinguals ............... 8 Impact of Bilingualism on Language and Cognitive Development................................. 10 Present Research .............................................................................................................. 12 Overview of Experiments ................................................................................................ 13 EXPERIMENT 1 ................................................................................................................... 15 Method ............................................................................................................................. 15 Results .............................................................................................................................. 17 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 18 EXPERIMENT 2 ................................................................................................................... 20 Method ............................................................................................................................. 20 Results .............................................................................................................................. 21 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 24 EXPERIMENT 3 ................................................................................................................... 25 Method ............................................................................................................................. 25 Results .............................................................................................................................. 27 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 29
viii
Page
EXPERIMENT 4 ................................................................................................................... 31 Method ............................................................................................................................. 31 Results .............................................................................................................................. 31 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 32 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................ 33 Limitations/Caveats ......................................................................................................... 34 Theoretical Implications for Models of Bilingual Memory............................................. 35 Conclusion and Future Studies ........................................................................................ 36 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................ 42 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................ 50 VITA...................................................................................................................................... 55
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page 1 Comparing the Metaphor Interference Effect of Monolinguals and Bilinguals ........ 49
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page 1 Mean Reaction Times by Stimulus Type: Experiment 1 ........................................... 44 2 Summary Data of the Language Background Questionnaire for English Spanish Bilinguals ................................................................................................................... 45
3 Average Reaction Time Data as a Function of Language Presentation, Bilingual Type and Sentence Type ............................................................................................ 46 4 Reaction Time Data as a Function of Language Presentation, Bilingual Type and Sentences Type .......................................................................................................... 47 5 Mean Reaction Times by Stimulus Type: Experiment 4 ........................................... 48
1
INTRODUCTION
Figurative language refers to phrases or expressions in which the intended meaning is
independent of and typically not directly computable from the literal meaning of the constituent
elements. As Katz (1996) notes, “[I]n the broadest sense, an utterance can be understood as
figurative when the expressed meaning differs from the meaning one intends to convey” (p 18).
For example, the statement, That salesman is a bulldozer, describes a salesman in terms of a
word normally denoting a piece of machinery. The intended meaning of the phrase requires
listeners to go beyond the surface meaning and make certain inferences regarding the similarity
between the qualities of the salesman and the features of a bulldozer, e.g., its weight, its
aggressiveness, etc. The particular non-literal meanings that are foregrounded may vary and are
likely to be decided with reference to context. Figurative language may be contrasted with literal
uses of language in which the meaning of an utterance is derivable directly from the meaning of
its elements (cf. Ariel, 2002).
Mastery of appropriate use of figurative expressions in a second language (L2) has been
acknowledged to be one of the greatest challenges for second language learners. Not
surprisingly, therefore, empirical investigations of L2 figurative language use have been guided
largely by pedagogical concerns surrounding the appropriate use of humor (Deneire, 1995;
Schmitz, 2002), irony, sarcasm, idioms (Cooper, 1999), metaphor (Danesi, 1992), and other
forms of figurative expressions in a second language context. Hardly any psycholinguistic-
oriented research has been conducted on figurative language processing or representation in
bilingual or multiple language users. The present research sought to fill this gap. Before turning
______________
This thesis follows the style of Journal of Memory and Language.
2
to the present research, a review of central psycholinguistic issues in figurative language
processing is provided.
Figurative Language: Peripheral vs. Central?
Empirical studies of figurative language processing have been characterized by two
differing theoretical positions with respect to the role of figurative language in linguistic
expression or conceptualization. An early prevailing view regarded literal forms of language as
central, with non-literal forms serving essentially stylistic or pragmatic functions (Grice, 1975).
In contrast, an alternative vew (e.g., Lakoff & Turner, 1980; Gibbs, 1994) claims that non-literal
forms of language are central to linguistic expression and thought and regards these forms as
autonomous, i.e., non-derivative from literal meaning.
In the former view, figurative language is characterized as an additional layer of meaning
that embellishes the literal level (Billow, 1977) but is not crucial to conveying the central
meaning, which was thought to be sufficiently represented by a literal level. Consistent with this
view of figurative language as peripheral, early models of figurative language comprehension,
such as the standard pragmatic model (Grice, 1975; Searle, 1979), posited that each utterance is
initially analyzed for its literal meaning and that only when a literal meaning is unavailable or
otherwise inappropriate contextually is a non-literal meaning sought. In the standard view, then,
figurative language comprehension occurs only after an interlocutor has considered (and
rejected) a possible literal interpretation. Another implication of the standard pragmatic model is
that the processing of figurative meaning is thought to be optional, rather than obligatory.
By contrast, recent work, pointing to the pervasiveness of figurative language in everyday
language, has argued that figurative language is in fact central, rather than peripheral, to
language functioning. Some researchers have even suggested that figurative processing is not
3
restricted to language use but may characterize thought itself (Gibbs, 1994; Giora, 2003; Katz,
Spanish Standard Equally Proficient 14 2205.89 387.01
English Dominant 12 2134.00 310.87
Spanish True Equally Proficient 14 1997.96 292.16
48
Table 5
Mean Reaction Times by Stimulus Type: Experiment 4
n M SD
Metaphor 15 1494.45 325.13
Scrambled 15 1377.96 327.15
Standard 15 1346.18 161.54
True 15 1355.50 217.10
49
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
standard scrambled metaphor
Glucksberg et al., 1982
English Monolinguals
English DominantBilingualsEqually ProfficientBilinguals
Figure 1 Comparing the Metaphor Interference Effect of Monolinguals and Bilinguals
50
APPENDIX B
51
Metaphors and Scrambled Metaphors Used in Experiment 3 of Glucksberg et al., (1982)
Metaphorical Statements Scrambled Metaphor Statements Some cats are detectives Some cats are chains Some clouds are ice cream Some clouds are detectives Some favors are chains Some favors are rockets Some feet are wheels Some feet are spotlights Some fingers are forks Some fingers are telescopes Some hallways are telescopes Some hallways are wheels Some hearts are dwellings Some hearts are ants Some ideas are food Some ideas are forks Some lies are clothing Some lies are ribbons Some lives are tapestries Some lives are clothing Some marriages are sports Some marriages are cotton Some minds are closets Some minds are worms Some perfumes are tools Some perfume are mirrors Some ponds are mirrors Some ponds are knives Some proverbs are spotlights Some proverbs are diseases Some questions are levers Some questions are tapestries Some roses are kisses Some roses are levers Some rumors are diseases Some rumors are dwellings Some soldiers are ants Some soldiers are food Some subways are worms Some subways are kisses Some thoughts are rockets Some thoughts are ice cream Some teeth are knives Some teeth are sports Some clouds are cotton Some clouds are tools
52
Example of Practice Stimuli Used to Familiarize the Participants with the Experimental Task Item Sentence Type
Some girls are radios Metaphor
Some roads are snakes Metaphor
Some girls are zoos Scrambled Metaphor
Some schools are snakes Scrambled Metaphor
Some candies are poodles Standard False
Some colors are beef Standard False
Some buildings are apartments High
Some buildings are hotels High
Some colors are brown Low
Some colors are pink Low
Note – Half of the items were translated from English to Spanish in Experiment 3
53
English Metaphors and their Spanish Translations
Some cats are detectives Algunos gatos son detectives Some clouds are ice cream Algunas nubes son helados Some favors are chains Algunos favores son cadenzas Some feet are wheels Algunos pies son ruedas Some fingers are forks Algunos dedos son tenedores Some hallways are telescopes Algunos vestíbulos son telescopios* Some hearts are dwellings Algunos corazones son viviendas Some ideas are food Algunas ideas son alimento Some lies are clothing Algunas mentiras son artículos de ropa Some lives are tapestries Algunas vidas son tapices Some marriages are sports Algunos matrimonios son deportes Some minds are closets Algunas mentes son gabinetes Some perfumes are tools Algunos perfumes son herramientas Some ponds are mirrors Algunos estanques son espejos Some proverbs are spotlights Algunos proverbios son proyectores Some questions are levers Algunas preguntas son palancas Some roses are kisses Algunas rosas son besos Some rumors are diseases Algunos rumores son enfermedades Some soldiers are ants Algunos soldados son hormigas Some subways are worms Algunos trenes suterráneos son gusanos Some thoughts are rockets Algunos pensamientos son cohetes Some teeth are knives Algunos dientes son cuchillos Some clouds are cotton Algunas nubes son helados * Note: The word vestíbulos was replaced by the word pasillos
54
Language Background Questionnaire
ID (last 5 digits): ________ Name:_____________________ Phone #:________________________________ Email:____________________________ Age:____ Country of Birth:__________________________________ Length of Stay in U.S.: ___ years. Do you know any languages other than English?______________________________________(specify) What is your first language, i.e. what you first learned to speak first? (If more than one, state all): _____________________________________________________________________________________________ When did you learn your other language(s)? ___ 0-4 yrs ____ 5-8 ______ 9-12 _____ > 12 What was/is the main language of instruction in your: a. Elementary School _________ b. Middle School _________
c. High School _________ d. College _________
Which hand do use to write with?________ Any left-handed family members?___________(specify) What language do you mostly use when speaking with each of the following: (If you use more than one language equally often, indicate that) a. Your Parents _________ b. Siblings _________ c. Grandparents _________ d. Friends _________
e. Classmates _________ f. Co-workers _________ g. Partner _________ h. Other (specify)
In which language(s) do you/would you typically do each of the following activities(If more than one language is used interchangeably, list all.):a. Express affection _________ b. Express anger _________ c. Pray _________ d. Dream _________ e. Think to yourself _________ f. Mentally add, multiply _________
g. Tell jokes/ funny stories _________ h. Listen to/read jokes _________ i. Send email _________ j. Curse _________ k. Keep a diary (to write down your thoughts/feelings) _________
In which language do you feel you can communicate most effectively? (If more than one, list all) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Circle one: "When speaking with other bilinguals I switch between languages during a conversation:" Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently All the time Not Applicable
Please rate your language ability in English and your other language (specify) on a 7 point scale where 1=very little knowledge and 7=use it like a native speaker: Speak English _________ Read English _________ Write English _________ Understand English _________
Speak Other language ____________ Read Other ____________ Write Other ____________ Understand Other ____________
Please check as appropriate: "My general comprehension of English is": ___ As good as that in my _______________(specify other language). ___ Better than that in my _______________(specify other language). ___ Worse than that in my _______________(specify other language).
55
VITA FRANCISCO EMIGDIO MARTINEZ, JR. Department of Psychology Texas A&M University 4235 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4235 979-845-2581 Permanent Address 4902 San Miguel Dr. Laredo, TX 78046 EDUCATION BACHELOR OF ARTS in Psychology. Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX, May 1999. RESEARCH EXPERIENCE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Graduate Assistant Teaching and Non-Teaching; Psychology Department, Language and Cognition Laboratory, August 2000 – present. PUBLICATIONS Vaid, J., Hull, R., Heredia, R., Gerkens, D. & Martinez, Francisco (2003). Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1431 - 1449. PRESENTATIONS Psychonomics Society 2003: Martinez, F., Vaid, J. & Heredia, R. (2003, Nov. Vancouver) Metaphoric meaning activation: Is there an effect of language status? (Poster). Friedman, M., Vaid, J., Chen, H-C, Martinez, F., & Choi, H. (2003, Nov. Vancouver) Cognitive vs. aesthetic influences on cultural differences in proverb evaluation. (Poster). Psychonomics Society 2001: Vaid, J., Heredia, R., Hull, R., Martinez, F. & Gerkens, D. (2001, Nov. Orlando). On getting a joke: Multiple meaning activation in humor processing. (Poster). Third International Symposium on Bilingualism 2001: Vaid, J. & Martinez, F. (2001, April Bristol). Figurative language and thought across languages: What transfers? (Poster). Society for Computers in Psychology 2000: Hull, R., Vaid, J., Martinez, F. & Gerkens, D. (2000, Nov. New Orleans). Favored vs. surprising meaning activation in joke comprehension: A web-based investigation. (Poster).