Obtaining a Figurative Interpretation of a Word: Support for Underspecification

Based on the results from a number of eye-tracking experiments, Frisson and Pickering (1999) and Pickering and Frisson (2001) proposed a model for the on-line processing of words with semantically related senses. According to this model, only the underspecified, schematic meaning of a word with multiple senses is activated initially. This underspecified meaning encompasses all related senses that are established in someone's lexicon. Once this underspecified meaning has been used to assign a semantic value, it can be followed by a homing-in stage in which context is used to arrive at the contextually appropriate sense. This article discusses the implications of the underspecification model with respect to the processing of figurative language and asserts that this model gives a better account of how incremental semantic processing can proceed smoothly and flexibly. In conclusion, the model is related to the linguistic distinctions of polysemy and monosemy, and it is argued that, at this moment in time, there is no compelling evidence to postulate more than one underspecified meaning.

[1]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The On-Line Effects of Semantic Context on Syntactic Processing , 1977 .

[2]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms: Some Effects of Context on Comprehension. Technical Report No. 93. , 1978 .

[3]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The access and processing of idiomatic expressions , 1979 .

[4]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[5]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[6]  R. Gibbs.  Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[7]  M. Mattson,et al.  From words to meaning: A semantic illusion , 1981 .

[8]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? , 1982 .

[9]  Susan Kemper,et al.  Interpreting idioms , 1982 .

[10]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding metaphor: the role of context , 1983 .

[12]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[13]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding old words with new meanings , 1983 .

[14]  R. GibbsJr..  Literal meaning and psychological theory , 1984 .

[15]  S. D. Lima,et al.  Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[16]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms , 1985, Cognition.

[17]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[18]  A. Paivio,et al.  Psychological Processes in the Comprehension of Metaphor , 1986 .

[19]  J. L. Myers,et al.  The role of context in metaphor comprehension , 1987 .

[20]  Marcelo Dascal,et al.  Defending Literal Meaning , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[22]  P. Tabossi.  Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts , 1988 .

[23]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  How Context Makes Metaphor Comprehension Seem 'Special' , 1989 .

[25]  Marcelo Dascal,et al.  On the Roles of Context and Literal Meaning in Understanding , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes , 1989 .

[27]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Understanding and Literal Meaning , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  B. Keysar.  On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. , 1989 .

[29]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing , 1989 .

[30]  Charles Ruhl.  On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics , 1989 .

[31]  R. Gerrig,et al.  The time course of sense creation , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[32]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[33]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[35]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning , 1990, Cognition.

[36]  H. Oostendorp,et al.  Moses beats Adam : a semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion , 1990 .

[37]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Interpreting and evaluating metaphors , 1991 .

[39]  A. Avramides.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[40]  R. Gibbs.  When Is Metaphor? The Idea of Understanding in Theories of Metaphor , 1992 .

[41]  K. Rayner,et al.  The Effect of Meaning Frequency on Processing Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Fixations , 1992 .

[42]  Stephen Dopkins,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1992 .

[43]  Susan D. Lima,et al.  Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity , 1993 .

[44]  Dawn G. Blasko,et al.  Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[45]  G. Murphy,et al.  Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[46]  David Tuggy.  Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness , 1993 .

[47]  Gibbs,et al.  Figurative thought and figurative language. , 1994 .

[48]  Susan A. Duffy,et al.  Effects of Prior Encounter and Global Discourse Bias on the Processing of Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence From Eye Fixations , 1994 .

[49]  Gregory Schraw.  Components of metaphoric processing , 1995 .

[50]  Kees van Deemter,et al.  Semantic ambiguity and underspecification , 1996 .

[51]  J. Pynte,et al.  The Time-Course of Metaphor Comprehension: An Event-Related Potential Study , 1996, Brain and Language.

[52]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

[53]  G. Murphy.  On metaphoric representation , 1996, Cognition.

[54]  James J. Masanz,et al.  LANGUAGE PROCESSING , 1998 .

[55]  Anne Bezuidenhout,et al.  Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction , 1997 .

[56]  G. Murphy.  Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation , 1997, Cognition.

[57]  R. Giora.  Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis , 1997 .

[58]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Property attribution in metaphor comprehension , 1997 .

[59]  D. Barr,et al.  Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension , 1997 .

[60]  Katherine S. Binder,et al.  Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading , 1998 .

[61]  SANDRA DOMINIEK,et al.  What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft , 1998 .

[62]  D. Chiappe.  Similarity, Relevance, and the Comparison Process , 1998 .

[63]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Linguistic evidence and mental representations , 1998 .

[64]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[65]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[66]  B. McElree,et al.  Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[67]  F. Brisard,et al.  Processing Unfamiliar Metaphors in a Self-Paced Reading Task , 2001 .

[68]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual Strength and the Subordinate Bias Effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[69]  G Kellas,et al.  Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[70]  Ofer Fein,et al.  Irony: Context and Salience , 1999 .

[71]  R. Giora.  On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language , 2003 .