Abstract
Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 18 normal adults as they read sentences that ended with words used literally, metaphorically, or in an intermediateliteral mapping condition. In the latter condition, the literal sense of the word was used in a way that prompted readers to map conceptual structure from a different domain. ERPs measured from 300 to 500 msec after the onset of the sentence-final words differed as a function of metaphoricity: Literal endings elicited the smallest N400, metaphors the largest N400, whereas literal mappings elicited an N400 of intermediate amplitude. Metaphoric endings also elicited a larger posterior positivity than did either literal or literal mapping words. Consistent with conceptual blending theory, the results suggest that the demands of conceptual integration affect the difficulty of both literal and metaphorical language.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aristotle (1952).Aristotle (Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 8). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Blasko, D. G. (1999). Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor?Journal of Pragmatics,31, 1675–1683.
Blasko, D. G., &Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 295–308.
Brown, C., &Hagoort, P. (1994). Brain response to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 45–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brownell, H., Potter, H., &Michelow, D. (1984). Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: A double dissociation?Brain & Language,22, 253–265.
Brownell, H., Simpson, T., Bihrle, A., &Potter, H. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients.Neuropsychologia,28, 375–383.
Coulson, S. (1996). The Menendez brothers virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.),Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 143–158). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.
Coulson, S. (2000).Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S., Van Petten, C., &Folstein, J. (2000). Event-related brain response to literal and figurative language in left handers.Psychophysiology,37 (Suppl. 1), 532.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Dunn, L., &Dunn, L. (1981).Peabody picture vocabulary test— revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Fauconnier, G., &Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks.Cognitive Science,22, 133–187.
Fletcher, P. C., Happe, F., Frith, U., &Baker, S. C. (1995). Other minds in the brain: A functional imaging study of “theory of mind” in story comprehension.Cognition,57, 109–128.
Foss, D. J. (1982). A discourse on semantic priming.Cognitive Psychology,14, 590–607.
Frisson, S., &Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification.Metaphor & Symbol,13, 149–171.
Gentner, D., &Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 331–355.
Gernsbacher, M. A., &Robertson, R. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension.Journal of Pragmatics,31, 1619–1630.
Gibbs, R. W. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 56–66.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994).The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., &Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 141–154.
Gildea, P., &Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 577–590.
Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding metaphors.Current Directions in Psychological Science,7, 39–43.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., &Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 85–98.
Glucksberg, S., &Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97, 3–18.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.
Grady, J., Oakley, T., &Coulson, S. (1999). Conceptual blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.),Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., &Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading.Memory & Cognition,12, 558–567.
Jasper, H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,10, 371–375.
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 375–385.
King, J., Ganis, G., &Kutas, M. (1998). Potential asymmetries in language comprehension: In search of the electrical right. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 187–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., &Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Atkin, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.),The computer and literary studies (pp. 153–165). Edinburgh: University Press.
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., Coulson, S., King, J. W., &Muente, T. F. (2000). Language. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.),Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 576–601). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.Nature,307, 161–163.
Kutas, M., &Van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83–103). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., &Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,69, 218–233.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., &Johnson, M. (1980).Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, G., &Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of eventrelated potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,62, 203–208.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D., Reynolds, R., &Antos, S. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 465–477.
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F., &Poli, J. (1996). The timecourse of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study.Brain & Language,55, 293–316.
Quintillian. (1933).The Institutio Oratoria of Quintillian. (H. E. Butler, Trans.). New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. (Original work published 1921)
Rugg, M., &Coles, M. (1995).Electrophysiology of mind: Eventrelated brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979).Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Y. (1999). Principles of metaphor interpretation and the notion of ‘domain’: A proposal for a hybrid model.Journal of Pragmatics,31, 1631–1653.
Simpson, G. B., Peterson, R. R., Casteel, M. A., &Burgess, C. (1989). Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 88–97.
Sweetser, E. (1990).From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tabossi, P. (1991). Understanding words in context. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Tourangeau, R., &Rips, L. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 452–472.
Turner, M. (1991).Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Van Petten, C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials.Language & Cognitive Processes,8, 485–531.
Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures.Psychophysiology,32, 511–525.
Van Petten, C., Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Mitchiner, M., &McIsaac, H. (1991). Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 131–150.
Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H., &Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects.Psychological Science,8, 238–242.
Winner, E., &Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.Brain,100, 719–727.
Wolff, P., &Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 529–541.
Zipf, G.K. (1945). The meaning-frequency relationship of words.Journal of General Psychology,33, 251–256.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Financial support was provided by a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders (DC00355) and by a grant from the National Institute of Neural Disorders and Stroke (NS30825).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coulson, S., Van Petten, C. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition 30, 958–968 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780