Psycholinguistics of Figurative Language Saarland University Les Sikos Winter 2015/2016 The Psycholinguistics of Figurative Language Course Instructor: Les Sikos Office: C7.1, Room 1.13 Office hours: by appointment E-­‐mail: [email protected]­‐saarland.de Meetings: Monday 12:15–1:45 pm C7.2, Seminarraum Website: Course Description and Goals This discussion-­‐based course explores the cognitive processes involved in the comprehension of figurative language (e.g., metaphor, simile, metonymy, idioms, jokes, puns, irony, sarcasm), with a particular focus on conceptual metaphors. We will read and discuss a combination of seminal theoretical papers and experimental investigations that highlight the current issues and debates in the literature. We will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the primary experimental methods used to study figurative language processing. At the conclusion of this seminar, you will be able to • Identify the main theories of figurative language comprehension • Identify the ongoing debates and current open questions in the field • Identify the primary approaches, tasks, and measures used in experimental research related to figurative language processing Course Requirements and Evaluation (100 pts) 4-­‐credits 7-­‐credits (Option A) 7-­‐credits (Option B) Presentation 1 50 Presentation 2 50 100 pts Presentation 1 33 Presentation 2 33 Research Proposal 34 100 pts Presentation 1 30 Presentation 2 30 Research Proposal 30 Oral Exam 10 100 pts Presentations (one in the first half of the semester, one in the second half) • Each student will present two papers and then lead the subsequent class discussion • Presentations should be approximately 45 minutes long (depending on number of participants) and should include: 1. Rationale for the study and/or scientific debate the paper addresses 2. Detailed description of what was done and what was found 3. Conclusions and implications 4. Discussion on how it relates to what was talked in previous classes 5. Limitations and/or critiques of the study • Please schedule a feedback meeting for your slides at least two days before the presentation Bonus Points • Participation (up to 10 bonus pts) Attending class, sharing your thoughts, asking questions • Summary and Questions (up to 15 bonus pts) Two paragraph summary of an assigned reading and two discussion questions (due 12 hours before class in which the reading will be presented) 1 Psycholinguistics of Figurative Language Saarland University Les Sikos Winter 2015/2016 Research Proposal (required only for 7-­‐credit options; due February 22, 2016) • Proposal for research that would inform one or more of the active debates on figurative language processing, or which extends the findings of one or more of the studies discussed during the course • The proposal should include an overview of the relevant question, rationale for the proposed experiment, description of the task and dependent measure(s), predictions for results, and discussion about how the possible outcomes would inform the debate • The paper should be no more than 15 pages long (single spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman, 2,5 cm margins) Tentative Topics and Readings W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 26-­‐Oct Introduction 2-­‐Nov Words Don’t Mean Things—People Mean Things • Sedivy, J. and Carlson, G. (2011) Why Ads don't Say what they Mean (Or Mean What they Say), in Sold on Language: How Advertisers Talk to You and What This Says about You, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. 9-­‐Nov Literal vs Nonliteral Language • Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 21(1), 85-­‐98. 16-­‐Nov The Psycholinguistics of Metaphor • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(2), 92-­‐96. Automatic Detection of Figurative Comparisons • Niculae & Danescu-­‐Niculescu-­‐Mizil. (2014). Brighter than Gold: Figurative Language in User Generated Comparisons. 23-­‐Nov Conceptual Metaphor Theory • Lakoff, G. (2006). Conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics: basic readings, Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter, 185-­‐238. Optional: Debate over CMT • Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2), 173-­‐
204. • Gibbs, R. W. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61(3), 309-­‐319. 30-­‐Nov Career of Metaphor • Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological review, 112(1), 193. 7-­‐Dec Metaphor vs Simile (Attempt by Glucksberg to rebut Bowdle & Gentner) • Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-­‐938. Role of Suppression • Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of pragmatics, 31(12), 1619-­‐
1630. 2 Psycholinguistics of Figurative Language Saarland University W8 14-­‐Dec W9 4-­‐Jan W10 11-­‐Jan W11 18-­‐Jan W12 25-­‐Jan Les Sikos Winter 2015/2016 Neural Mechanisms Underlying Metaphor Processing
• Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in
metaphor comprehension?: ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain
Research, 1146, 128-145.
Optional: ERP methods • Kaan, E. (2007). Event-­‐related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 571-­‐591. • Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-­‐related potential technique. MIT press, Ch1. Metaphors in the Cerebral Hemispheres • Chettih, S., Durgin, F. H., & Grodner, D. J. (2012). Mixing metaphors in the cerebral hemispheres: What happens when careers collide?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 295. • Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A. (2000). Differential effects of right-­‐and left-­‐hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-­‐2), 63-­‐83. • Davenport, T., & Coulson, S. (2013). Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language: An event-­‐related potential study. Neuropsychologia,51(5), 907-­‐921. Optional: Hemispheric Differences • Jung-­‐Beeman, M. (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 512-­‐518. Metaphor in the Framing Social Issues • Thibodeau, P., McClelland, J. L., & Boroditsky, L. (2009). When a bad metaphor may not be a victimless crime: the role of metaphor in social policy. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 809-­‐814). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society. Formalizing the Pragmatics of Metaphor • Kao, J. T., Bergen, L., & Goodman, N. D. (2014). Formalizing the pragmatics of metaphor understanding. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 719-­‐724). Jokes and Puns • Coulson, S. (2015). 9 Frame-­‐shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model. Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research, 26, 167. • Coulson, Seana, and Marta Kutas. "Frame-­‐shifting: Event-­‐related brain response to jokes." Paper submitted for publication (1998). • Coulson, S., & Severens, E. (2007). Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: When cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language, 100(2), 172-­‐187. • Coulson, S., & Williams, R. F. (2005). Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43(1), 128-­‐141. • Coulson, S., & Wu, Y. C. (2005). Right hemisphere activation of joke-­‐related information: An event-­‐related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(3), 494-­‐506. Sarcasm • Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3. 3 Psycholinguistics of Figurative Language Saarland University W13 1-­‐Feb W14 8-­‐Feb 22-­‐Feb Les Sikos Winter 2015/2016 Irony • Regel, S., Coulson, S., & Gunter, T. C. (2010). The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain research, 1311, 121-­‐135. • Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn't it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277-­‐293. Review Term Papers Due 4