1. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
  2. Arşiv
  3. Cilt 31, Sayı 2
Yıl 2020, Cilt 31 , Sayı 2, Sayfalar 289 - 312 2020-12-30

Processing Metaphors: Models of Processing, Factors Influencing Processing Mechanisms, and Recent Studies in Turkish
Metafor Çözümleme Süreçleri: Çözümleme Modelleri, Çözümleme Sürecini Etkileyen Faktörler ve Türkçede Yapılan Son Çalışmalar

Fatma Nur ÖZTÜRK [1] , Meryem Ezgi BAYRAMOĞLU [2] , Duygu ÖZGE [3]

Öz

Humans have an innate capacity to comprehend the communicative intentions behind utterances as soon as they hear them. However, there are still many unresolved questions regarding which cognitive mechanisms help people to recognize metaphorical expressions and how these mechanisms develop from childhood to adulthood. This article aims to examine two models of metaphor processing, summarizes the factors affecting the process of metaphor comprehension, and presents a literature review on metaphor processing in Turkish. This systematic review demonstrates that Turkish literature is advancing with more experimental studies in the field of metaphor processing and calls on further psycholinguistic research to understand how individual differences influence the processing and acquisition of metaphors.
İnsan zihni, sembolik ifadeleri duyduğunda milisaniyeler içinde anlamlandırabilir. Ancak hangi bilişsel süreçlerin metaforların çözümlenmesinde rol aldığı ve bu mekanizmaların çocukluktan yetişkinliğe nasıl geliştiği konusunda henüz yanıtı bilinmeyen birçok soru bulunmaktadır. Bu makale, metafor çözümleme sürecini açıklayan iki temel modeli psikodilbilim çerçevesinde inceleyerek, metafor algılama yetisinin gelişimine etki eden unsurları ve bu alanda Türkçede yapılmış çalışmaları incelemektedir. Türkçede metafor çözümlenmesi üzerine yapılan deneysel çalışmaların gitgide artmasının literatüre hız kazandırdığı görülmüştür. Bu makale, bu konuda Türkçede nörodilbilim ve psikodilbilim çerçevesinde daha çok çalışma yapılması gerektiğini göstererek, bilişsel bozukluğu olan yetişkinlerde ve atipik ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklarda metafor çözümleme süreçlerinin nasıl olduğu üzerine yapılacak yeni araştırmalara çağrı yapmaktadır

Kaynakça

  • Aksan, M. (2006). Metaphors of anger: An outline of a cultural model. Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 3(1), 31-67.
  • Aksan, Y., & Kantar, D. (2008). No wellness feels better than this sickness: Love metaphors from a cross-cultural perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 262-291.
  • Arıca-Akkök, E. (2017). Turkish metaphors of anger. The Journal of the Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, 57(1), 302-326.
  • Arıca-Akkök, E., & Uzun, İ. P. (2018). Metaphor processing in Turkish: An eye-movement study. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 15(1), 105-124.
  • Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69-81.
  • Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from context: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 182-195.
  • Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 415-423.
  • Billow, R. M. (1977). Metaphor: A review of the psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 81-92.
  • Blasko, D. G. (1999). Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1675-1683.
  • Brüne, M., & Bodenstein, L. (2005). Proverb comprehension reconsidered — ‘theory of mind’ and the pragmatic use of language in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 75(2-3), 233-239.
  • Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 447-477). New York: Academic Press.
  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2005). The relation between children’s reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90(1), 65-87.
  • Camp, E. (2006). Metaphor in the mind: The cognition of metaphor. Philosophy Compass, 1(2), 154-170.
  • Carriedo, N., Corral, A., Montoro, P. R., Herrero, L., Ballestrino, P., & Sebastián, I. (2016). The development of metaphor comprehension and its relationship with relational verbal reasoning and executive function. PLOS One, 11(3), 1-20.
  • Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 172-188.
  • Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51-68.
  • Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115-144.
  • Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56-72.
  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 19(4), 450.
  • Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001) Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 47-54.
  • de Villiers, J. (2011). I saw the yellowish going south: Narrative discourse in autism spectrum disorder. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 3-29.
  • Efeoğlu, E., & Işık-Güler, H. (2017). Turkey as BODY POLITIC: A comparative perspective on body-related metaphors from Turkish, British, and American political news discourse. Journal of Linguistics Research, 28(1) 57-77.
  • Elbers, L. (1988). New names from old words: related aspects of children's metaphors and word compounds. Journal of Child Language, 15(3), 591-617.
  • Epstein, R. L., & Gamlin, P. J. (1994). Young children's comprehension of simple and complex metaphors presented in pictures and words. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(3), 179-191.
  • Finch, G. (2003). How to study linguistics: A guide to understanding language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gagné, C. L. (2002). Metaphoric interpretations of comparison-based combinations. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(3), 161-178.
  • Gavilán, J. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (2011). Theory of mind and language comprehension in schizophrenia: Poor mindreading affects figurative language comprehension beyond intelligence deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(1), 54-69.
  • Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 223-247.
  • Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193-216.
  • George, T., & Wiley, J. (2016). Forgetting the literal: The role of inhibition in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(8), 1324-1330.
  • Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433-450.
  • Gerrig, R. J., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1988). Beyond the lexicon: Creativity in language production. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(3), 1-19.
  • Gerrig, R. J., & Healy, A. F. (1983). Dual processes in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(4), 667-675.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1981). Memory for requests in conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 630–640.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1994a). Figurative thought and figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411-446). New York: Academic Press.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1994b). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs Jr, & G. J. Steen (Ed.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th international cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 145-166). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458.
  • Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(5), 577-590.
  • Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
  • Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101-119.
  • Happé, F. G. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66(3), 843-855.
  • Harris, R. J. (1976). Comprehension of metaphors: A test of the two-stage processing model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8(4), 312-314.
  • Hülagü, A., & Özge, D. (2017, July). Gesturing literal and metaphorical motion events in children and adults. Poster presented at IASCL2017: 14th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Lyon, France.
  • Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558-567.
  • Iskandar, S. (2014). The metaphor interpretation test: Cognitive processes involved and age group differences in performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, Canada). Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6086&context=etd
  • İbe-Akcan, P., & Arıca-Akkök, E. (2016). Non-literal meaning comprehension: A small-scale analysis on Turkish speakers. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 65-78.
  • Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(5), 473-487.
  • Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). Developmental levels of processing in metaphor interpretation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48(1), 1-31.
  • Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18-32.
  • Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T., & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99-117.
  • Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(4), 191-214.
  • Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 673-689.
  • Kenett, Y. N., Gold, R., & Faust, M. (2018). Metaphor comprehension in low and high creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-10.
  • Kogan, N., Conner, K., Gross, A., & Fava, D. (1980). Understanding visual metaphor: Developmental and individual differences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 45(1), 1-78.
  • Lai, V. T., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127(3), 484-496.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
  • Lecce, S., Ronchi, L., Del Sette, P., Bischetti, L., & Bambini, V. (2018). Interpreting physical and mental metaphors: Is Theory of Mind associated with pragmatics in middle childhood? Journal of Child Language, 46(2), 393-407.
  • Lee, R. F., & Kamhi, A. G. (1990). Metaphoric competence in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(8), 476-482.
  • Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1988). Autistic children's understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(4), 315-324.
  • Malgady, R. G. (1977). Children's Interpretation and appreciation of similes. Child Development, 48(4), 1734-1738.
  • Mao, R., Lin, C., & Guerin, F. (2018). Word embedding and WordNet based metaphor identification and interpretation. In I. Gurevych, & Y. Miyao (Ed.), Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 1222-1231). Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Martinich, A. P. (1984). A theory for metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 13(1), 35-56.
  • Mashal, N., & Kasirer, A. (2011). Thinking maps enhance metaphoric competence in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2045-2054.
  • McElree, B., & Nordlie, J. (1999). Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(3), 486-494.
  • Mossaheb, N., Aschauer, H. N., Stoettner, S., Schmoeger, M., Pils, N., Raab, M., & Willinger, U. (2014). Comprehension of metaphors in patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(4), 928-937.
  • Mo, S., Su, Y., Chan, R. C., & Liu, J. (2008). Comprehension of metaphor and irony in schizophrenia during remission: the role of theory of mind and IQ. Psychiatry Research, 157(1-3), 21-29.
  • Norbury, C. F. (2004). Factors supporting idiom comprehension in children with communication disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1179-1193.
  • Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465-477.
  • Özçalışkan, Ş. (2003). Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective: A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 189–228.
  • Özçalışkan, Ş. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32(2), 291-318.
  • Özçalışkan, Ş. (2007). Metaphors we move by: Children's developing understanding of metaphorical motion in typologically distinct languages. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 147-168.
  • Özkan, S., Aygüneş, M., & Dikmen, M. (2020). Processing of metaphoric language in native language and second language: A self-paced reading study. Journal of Linguistics Research, 31(1), 101-122.
  • Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Pierce, R. S., MacLaren, R., & Chiappe, D. L. (2010). The role of working memory in the metaphor interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 400-404.
  • Rinaldi, W. (2000). Pragmatic comprehension in secondary school‐aged students with specific developmental language disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(1), 1-29.
  • Rubio-Fernandez, P. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics, 24(4), 345-371.
  • Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 83-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shinjo, M., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of context in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 226-241.
  • Shutova, E. (2015). Design and evaluation of metaphor processing systems. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 579-623.
  • Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. Intelligence, 40(4), 343-351.
  • Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Ed.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Stamenković, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641-671.
  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Wallach, M.A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 113-129.
  • Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1967). Symbolic formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley.
  • Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100(4), 717-729. Winner, E., McCarthy, M., Kleinman, S., & Gardner, H. (1979). First metaphors. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1979(3), 29-41.
  • Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A. K., & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology, 12(4), 289-297.
  • Wiśniewska-Kin, M. (2017). Children’s metaphor comprehension and production. The New Educational Review, 48(2), 87-99.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil en
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Tanıtım Yazıları
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-2161-1367
Yazar: Fatma Nur ÖZTÜRK
Kurum: ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey

Orcid: 0000-0001-9578-276X
Yazar: Meryem Ezgi BAYRAMOĞLU
Kurum: ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey

Orcid: 0000-0002-1698-5479
Yazar: Duygu ÖZGE (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey
Tarihler

Yayımlanma Tarihi : 30 Aralık 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Öztürk, F , Bayramoğlu, M , Özge, D . (2020). Processing Metaphors: Models of Processing, Factors Influencing Processing Mechanisms, and Recent Studies in Turkish . Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi , 31 (2) , 289-312 . DOI: 10.18492/dad.773081
Makalenin Yazarları
Fatma Nur ÖZTÜRK [1]
Meryem Ezgi BAYRAMOĞLU [2]
Duygu ÖZGE [3]
Makale Gönder
Arşiv
Editör Kurulu
İletişim
Scopus
Scopus
TR Dizin
TR Dizin

88x31.png

Bu eser

Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslarası (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad