Anadilinde ve İkinci Dilde Metaforik Dilin İşlemlenmesi: Öz-İlerlemeli Okuma Çalışması

Year 2020, Volume: 31 Issue: 1, 101 - 122, 28.06.2020

Sümeyra Özkan Mehmet Aygüneş Merve Dikmen

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.725338

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı düzeyde Metaforik anlam içeren ifadelerin (düz anlamlı ifadeler, kalıplaşmış metaforik ifadeler, yeni metaforik ifadeler ve anlambilimsel açıdan bozuk ifadeler) ve farklı bilişsel işlevleri yansıtan Metafor Tiplerinin (yön metaforları, varoluşsal metaforlar ve yapısal metaforlar) işlemlenmesinde anadili (D1) ve ikinci dil (D2) konuşucuları arasında bir işlemleme farklılığı olup olmadığını belirlemektir. Bu amaç çerçevesinde çalışmada öz-ilerlemeli okuma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada Metaforik anlam içerme açısından yeni metaforik ifadeler ve anlambilimsel bozuk ifadelerin işlemlenmesinin düz anlamlı ifadeler ve kalıplaşmış metaforik ifadelerden daha uzun sürdüğü belirlenmiştir. İşlemleme örüntüsünün ise D1 - D2 gruplarında aynı biçimde oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Bu bulgular metaforik ifadeler ile düz anlamlı ifadelerin paralel/eş zamanlı yorumlandığını öne süren görüşü (Glucksberg, 2003; McElree ve Nordlie, 1999) desteklemekte ve D1 açısından kalıplaşmış metaforların D2 grubu açısından yeni metafor olarak algılanabileceği görüşünü (Mashal vd., 2015; Türker, 2016) zayıflatmaktadır. Metafor Tipleri açısından ise, D1 grubunda metafor tiplerinin işlemlenmesinde bir farklılık oluşmazken D2 grubunda yön metaforlarının varoluşsal metaforlardan ve yapısal metaforlardan daha uzun işlemleme süresine sahip olduğu gözlenmiştir. Yön metaforlarının a) hedef kavram açısından daha az kavramsal yapı sunması, b) D2 grubunun D1 ve D2’lerinde tarz özellikleri açısından farklıklar göstermesi c) D1 ve D2’de çözümlenmesinde görsel imgelerin kullanımı açısından farklılıklar içermesi gibi olası nedenlerin D2 grubunun yön metaforlarını işlemlemesinde ek bir bilişsel yüke neden olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Kavramsal metaforlar, metafor işlemleme, ikinci dil edinimi, öz ilerlemeli okuma

Supporting Institution

Tübitak

Project Number

117S470

Thanks

Bu çalışma TÜBİTAK tarafından desteklenmiştir (Proje No:117S470)

Processing of Metaphoric Language in Native Language and Second Language: A Self-Paced Reading Study

Abstract

This study aims to see whether any difference between native language speakers (L1) and second language speakers (L2) exists in terms of the processing of expressions containing different levels of figurative meaning (literal, conventional metaphors, novel metaphors and semantically anomalous) and metaphor types that reflect different cognitive functions (orientational metaphors, ontological metaphors and structural metaphors). To this end, self-paced reading was used in the study. It was observed that the processing of novel metaphors and anomalous expressions, as they contain figurative meaning, took longer than literal expressions and conventional metaphors. It was found that the processing pattern was the same in both L1 and L2 groups. These findings support the view suggesting that the figurative expressions and literal expressions are interpreted in parallel / in equal time (Glucksberg, 2003; McElree and Nordlie, 1999), and oppose the one that metaphors which are perceived as conventional by L1 speakers, can be perceived as novel metaphors by the L2 group (Mashal et al. 2015; Türker, 2016). In terms of metaphor types, while there was no difference in the processing of metaphors of different types in the L1 group, it was observed that the orientational metaphors in the L2 group took longer to process than ontological metaphors and structural metaphors. It is thought that orientational metaphors will cause an additional cognitive load in L2 group because of the possible reasons such as a) orientational metaphors’ providing less conceptual structure for target concept, b) L2 group’s differences in their L1 and L2 in terms of manner features c) the differences in the use of visual imagery in L1 and L2 to process the orientational metaphors.

Keywords

Conceptual metaphors, processing of metaphors, second language acquisition, self-paced reading

Project Number

117S470

References

• Al-Amirî, A. (2016). Et-tasavvur el-istiârî libünyetü’l-mesar fi’l-lüğati’l-arabiyye. Allisaniyet Al Arabiyyah (3), 127-152.
• Arzouon, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Res. (36), 222-231.
• Bambini, V., Bertini, C., & Schaeken, W. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from context: an ERP study. Front. Psychol. (7), 559.
• Bambini, V., Gentili, C., & Ricciardi, E. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin (86), 203-216.
• Bohrn, I., Altmann, U., & Jacobs, A. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language - a quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia (50), 2669-2683.
• Bonferroni, C.E. (1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilit `a. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze 8:3–62.
• Bonnoud, V., Gill, R., & Ingrand, P. (2002). Metaphorical and non-metaphorical links: a behavioral and ERP study in young and elderly adults. Neurophysiologie clinique (32), 258-268.
• Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphorand talk. In: Gibbs R.W. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphorand Thought. New York: Cambrigde University Press. 197-211.
• Chouinard, B., & Cummine, J. (2016). All the world's a stage: evaluation of two stage of metophor comprehension in people with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder (23), 107-121.
• Citron, F., Michaelis, N. & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Metaphorical language processing and amygdala activation in L1 and L2 . Neuropsychologia 140.
• Clark, H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: a study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 , 56-72.
• Cornejo, C., Simonetti, F., İbanez, A., Aldunate, N., Ceric, F., Lopez, R. & Nunez, E. (2009). Gesture and metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence of cross-modal coordination by audiovisual stimulation. Brain and Cognition (70), 42-45.
• Coulsan, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potantial study. Mem. Cognit. (30), 958-968.
• Dehman, O. (2015). Nazariyyeti’il-istiâre et-tasviriyye ve’l-hıtab edebî. Kahire: Roueya li’in-neşr ve’t-tevzi’. Forgacs, B., Lukacs, A., & Pleh, C. (2014). Lateralized processing of novel metaphors: disentangling figurativeness and novelty. Neuropsychologia (56), 101-109.
• Gibbs, R., & Gerrig, R. (1989). How conyexts makes metaphor comprehension seem 'special'. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity (4), 145-158.
• Gibbs, R., Lima, P., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. J. Pragmat (36), 1189-1210. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figürative language. Journal of Pragmatics (31), 919-929.
• Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistic of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2), 92-96.
• Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science (7), 39-43.
• Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., & McGlone, M. (1992). Metaphor understanding and accessing conceptual schema: reply to Gibbs. Psychological Review 99(3), 578-581.
• Gold R, Faust M, Goldstein A (2010). Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in asperger syndrome. Brain and Language (113), 124–134.
• Goldstein, A., Arzuoan, Y., & Faust, M. (2012). Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates of metaphor conventionalization. Brain and Language (123), 137-142.
• Grauwe, S., t, A., Holcomb, P.J., Ditman, T. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia (48), 137-142.
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and coversation. In: Cole, P. & Morgan, J.L. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics , Speech Akts, New York. Academic Press. (3) 41-58.
• Hanoğlu, L., Aygüneş, M., Yamanoğlu, M. (2018). 117S420 kodlu Alzheimer ve Frontoremporal Demans'ta görülen metafor dilinin işlenmesi ve bu iki farklı patoloji durumunda (AH ve FTD) ortaya çıkan bozulmaların Fizyopatolojisinin Elektroensefalografi (EEG) ve Near İnfrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) yöntemleriyle araştırılması adlı TÜBİTAK projesinin 1. geliştirme raporu.
• İbanez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Anderucci, P. & Hurtado E. (2010). Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters (471), 48-52.
• Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language (28), 375-385.
• Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lachaud, C., & Zhong, N. (2013). Conceptual metaphors and embodied cognition: EEG coherence reveals brain activity differences between primary and complex conceptual metaphors during comprehension. Cognitive Systems Research (22-23), 12-16.
• Lai, V., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language (127), 484-496.
• Lai, V., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research (1284), 145-155.
• Lai, V., van Dam, W., Conant, L., Binder, J., & Desai, R. (2015). Familiarity differentially affects right hemisphere contributions to processing metaphors and literals. Front. Hum. Neurosci. (9:44).
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.(1980) Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press .
• Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Appl. Linguistics (27), 268-294.
• Mairan, V., Blumenfeld, H., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research (50), 940-967.
• Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., & Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics (35), 96-108.
• Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor, language and thought. In: Ortony A., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., & Pollio, M. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: figürative language in psychology, psychotherapy and education.London: Psychology Press.
• Proverbio, A., Crotti, N., Zani, A., & Adorni, R. (2009). The role of left and right hemispheres in the comprehension of idiomatic language: an electrical neuroimaging study. BMC Neurosci. (10), 116.
• Rapp, A., Mutschler, D., & Erb, M. (2012). Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neuroimage (63), 600-610.
• Schmidt, L., & Seger, C. (2009). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and Cognition (71), 375-386.
• Schneider, S., Rapp, A. M., Haeußinge, F. B., Ernest, L. H., Hamm, F., Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A., (2014). Beyond the N400: Complementary access to early neural correlates of novel metaphor comprehension using combined electrophysiological and haemodynamic measurements, Cortex (53), 45-59.
• Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stringaris, K., Medford, N., Giora, R. & Giampietro V.C. (2006). How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex. Neuro Image (2006), 784-793.
• Tartter, V., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, V. Molholm. S. & Stewart R.V. (2002). Novel metaophor apear anomalous at least momentarily: evidence from N400. Brain and Language (80), 488-509.
• Türker, E. (2016). The role of L1 conceptual and linguistic knowledge and frequency in the acquisition of L2 metaphorical expressions. Sec. Lang. Res. (32), 25-48.
• Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: evidence from masked priming ERP. Front. Hum. Neurosci. (8), 583.
• Yang, J. (2014). The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: a metaanalysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. (35), 107-122.
• Yang, F.G, Bradley, K., Huq, M., Wu, D. & Krawczyk, D.C. (2012). Contextual effects on conceptual blending in metaphors: an event-related potential study. Journal of Linguistic (26), 312-326.