On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language

Abstract Instead of postulating the priority of literal meaning (see e.g., Grice, 1975; Searle, 1979), the present paper adduces evidence in support of the priority of salient meanings (for a similar view see Recanati, 1995). The salient meaning of a word or an expression is its lexicalized meaning, i.e., the meaning retrievable from the mental lexicon rather than from the context (e.g., the literal meaning of novel metaphors but not their intended, nonliteral meaning made available by context, see Giora, 1997). Factors contributing to (degrees of) lexical salience are e.g., conventionality, frequency, and familiarity. Research into the processes involved in comprehension of familiar and novel instances of metaphors, idioms, and irony demonstrates that salient meanings enjoy a privileged status: They are always accessed, and always initially, regardless of context. The findings reported here tie up with previous findings (e.g., Swinney, 1979; Gernsbacher, 1990; Rayner et al., 1994) which argue against the selective access view of context. They show that, contrary to the received view (see Gibbs, 1994, for a review), even rich and supportive contexts which are biased in favor of less salient meanings do not inhibit activation of salient meanings.

[1]  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 .

[2]  J. Mahon The Poetics of Mind , 1996 .

[3]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Yo Matsumoto Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs , 1996 .

[5]  Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. , 1993 .

[6]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Language Comprehension As Structure Building , 1990 .

[7]  John N. Williams Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .

[8]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  Asa Kasher,et al.  Differential Effects of Right- and Left-Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Sarcasm and Metaphor , 2000 .

[10]  R. Gibbs Your Wish Is My Command; Convention and Context in Interpreting Indirect Requests. , 1981 .

[11]  Christine Chiarello,et al.  Right Hemisphere Contributions to Lexical Semantics , 1988 .

[12]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[13]  M. Just,et al.  Working Memory Constraints on the Resolution of Lexical Ambiguity: Maintaining Multiple Interpretations in Neutral Contexts , 1994 .

[14]  J. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[15]  François Récanati,et al.  The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  H. Gardner,et al.  The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks , 1990, Brain and Language.

[17]  R. Giora On irony and negation , 1995 .

[18]  R. Gibbs On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. , 1986 .

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

[20]  R. Giora,et al.  Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis , 1999 .

[21]  Cristina Cacciari,et al.  Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. , 1994 .

[22]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[23]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Reading Skill and Suppression Revisited , 1995, Psychological science.

[24]  H. Gardner,et al.  Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients , 1986, Brain and Language.

[25]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1997 .

[26]  R. Gibbs Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests , 1983 .

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

[28]  Ofer Fein,et al.  Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. , 1998 .

[29]  R. Giora When is relevance? On the role of salience in utterance interpretation , 1998 .

[30]  W. T. Farrar,et al.  Literal meaning and figurative language , 1993 .

[31]  J. Jones Early integration of context during lexical access of homonym meanings , 1991 .

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

[33]  Rachel Giora,et al.  Discourse coherence is an independent notion: A reply to Deirdre Wilson , 1998 .

[34]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: A double dissociation? , 1984, Brain and Language.

[35]  R. Gibbs A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse , 1982 .

[36]  W. Trammell Neill,et al.  The detection of lexical ambiguity: Evidence for context-sensitive parallel access , 1988 .

[37]  R. Giora,et al.  On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language☆ , 1999 .

[38]  Begoña Vicente On the semantics and pragmatics of metaphor: coming full circle , 1996 .

[39]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

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

[41]  R. Kreuz,et al.  Context can constrain lexical access: implications for models of language comprehension , 1986 .

[42]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients , 1983, Brain and Language.

[43]  E. Zaidel Performance on the ITPA following cerebral commissurotomy and hemispherectomy , 1979, Neuropsychologia.

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

[45]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension , 1975 .