one processing mechanism underlies of "literal" and "figurative" language composition

What is it about?

Metonymy is claimed to result in 'non-literal' meanings "Sue read Roth in college" (vs. "Sue met Roth in college", literal counterpart) . Here we show that both kinds of expressions show a very similar pattern of real-time composition and brain localization. Contra previous assumptions, this suggests that they are supported by the same mechanisms of composition. This is shown through three converging methods: self-paced reading, ERP and fMRI.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The results that are presented call into question the existence of a "literal' vs. 'non-literal' distinction in our linguistic repertoire. In doing so, they suggest that the notion "figurative language" may be purely epiphenomenal; not based on a real distinction in the mind. By questioning these traditional distinctions, the present findings have a direct impact on our understanding of how meaning is structured in the mind, and how it is captured through linguistic expressions. It is the first study that investigates the two different kinds of metonymy systematic (product-for producer) and circumstantial (reference transfer) alongside each other, and along three complementary methods: self-paced reading and event-related potential (targeting time course of composition) and fMRI targeting the brain's preferential localization for that composition.

Perspectives