METAPHOR AS AN
INTERACTIONAL DISCOURSE
RESOURCE IN APHASIA
Julie A. Hengst*, Melissa C. Duff**, Jake
Kurczek**, Paul A. Prior*, and Andrea Olinger*
*University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
**University of Iowa, Iowa City
Session #1166, 2011 ASHA Convention, Nov.17-19, San Diego, CA.
Poetics & Literary
Analysis—
BACKGROUND:
Linguistic Forms-Figures of speech
and thought
Figurative vs literal
comparisons
Cognitive
Linguistics/Psychology—
Cognitive Phenomena
Ways of
seeing/making sense
of the world
Interactional
Sociolinguistics--
Contextualizing Talk
& Action
POETICS AND LITERARY ANALYSIS
TROPES…LINGUISTIC FORMS…
HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FIGURES_OF_SPEECH
 A figure of speech is the use of a word or words
diverging from its usual meaning. It can also be a
special repetition, arrangement or omission of words
with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized
meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words
in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, or
personification.
 Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of
expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer
from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an
ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation.
 A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetorical
figure or a locution.
FIGURATIVE (VS LITERAL) COMPARISONS
Cross-Domain (Figurative)
Comparison
Within Domain (Literal)
Comparison
 He is as thin as a rail.
 He is as thin as his dad.
 Metaphor – comparing
person’s width to an
inanimate object.
 Comparing one person’s
width to another person
COMMON CROSS-DOMAIN COMPARISONS
:





Metaphor –
Similie
Irony –
Metonymy –
Analyogy -
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS/PSYCHOLOGY
“DEAD” METAPHORS
“…now that every new leaf
I have is gone…”
“Sticks and Stones”
THE
POWER OF
IMAGERY,
METAPHOR,
& FIGURES
OF SPEECH
& THOUGHT
… i s n o t l i m i te d
to
ar tists, poets,
o r t h e g i f te d
INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS
METAPHOR AND
APHASIA
Controlled
tasks
Ever yday
talk
CONTROLLED TASKS
THE CURRENT STUDY
METHOD
 Participants and Dataset
 Discourse Analysis
 Concensus coding of
 Descriptive Comparison
 Across group
 Across communicaative context
CODING CATEGORIES
 Identify all Instance s of Figurative Comparison
 Type:
 Irony (I), Metaphor MT), Metonymy (MN); Other (O)
 Framing devices used (if any)
 Yes/No (list device if used)
 Semiotic recour ses used
 Verbal; nonverbal; mixed
 Interactional Positioning
 Isolated; Series;
 +/-Embeded with other figurative comparisons
 Theme
 List ac
 “dead metaphor”
 y/n (list dead metaphor)
 Primar y Speaker (Par ticipant w/Aphasia; Par tner; Researche r;
combination)
RESULTS
Form
Irony Aphasia
25
Irony Comparison
20
Metonymy Aphasia
15
Metonymy Comparison
Metaphor Aphasia
10
Metaphor Comparison
5
Other Aphasia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other Comparison
DISCUSSION