Language users employ creative and innovative means to refer to novel concepts. One example is place-for-event metonymy as in “How many bands played at Woodstock?” where the place name is used to ...refer to an event. We capitalize on the observation that place-for-event metonymy can on the one hand result in the conventionalization of the event reading (as is the case for “Woodstock”) but on the other hand can also be relatively short-lived as a function of the socio-cultural or historical impact of the respective event (e.g., “Egypt” to refer to one of the sites of the Arab Spring). We use place-for-event metonymy as a test case to tap into discrete stages of conventionalization and compare the processing of the place and the event reading of particular expressions, with ratings of the degree of conventionalization as predictors. In an event-related potential (ERP) reading study, we observed a modulation of the Late Positivity between 500 and 750 ms post-onset by condition (event vs. place reading) and degree of conventionalization. The amplitude of the positivity was most pronounced for event readings with a low degree of conventionalization (similar to previous findings from ad-hoc metonymy). Interestingly, place readings with a high degree of (event) conventionalization also evoked a pronounced positivity. The Late Positivity is viewed to reflect processing demands during reconceptualization required for proper utterance interpretation. Overall, the data suggest that stages of meaning evolution are reflected in the underlying neurophysiological processes.
Display omitted
•Place-for-event metonymy comes with different degrees of conventionalization.•Late Positivity is modulated by condition and degree of conventionalization.•Non-conventional event readings of place names pattern with ad-hoc metonymy.•Place names with highly conventionalized events also show Late Positivity.•Stages of meaning evolution are reflected in neurophysiological signals.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
•Combinations of motor and cognitive tasks (with two levels of difficulty each) are investigated.•P2 indicates that motor task facilitates cognitive task performance.•Cognitive task difficulty is ...modulated in one-legged stance but not during sitting.•Degree of task difficulty is reflected in P3.•ERP effects associated with top-down and bottom-up attention allocation.
We often walk around when we have to think about something, but suddenly stop when we are confronted with a demanding cognitive task, such as calculating 1540*24. While previous neurophysiological research investigated cognitive and motor performance separately, findings that combine both are rare. To get a deeper understanding of the influence of motor demands as well as the difficulty of a simultaneously performed cognitive task, we investigated 20 healthy individuals. Participants performed two cognitive tasks with different levels of difficulty while sitting or standing on one leg. In addition to behavioral data, we recorded the electroencephalogram from 26Ag/AgCI scalp electrodes. The critical time-windows, predefined by visual inspection, yielded an early (200–300 ms, P2) and a subsequent positivity (350–500 ms, P3). Statistical analysis of the early time window registered a motor × cognition interaction. Resolution of this interaction revealed an effect of the cognitive task in the one-legged stance motor condition, with a more pronounced positivity for the difficult task. No significant differences between cognitive tasks emerged for the simple motor condition. The time-window between 350 and 500 ms registered main effects of the motor task and a trend for the cognitive task. While the influence of cognitive task difficulty (in the P3) is in accordance with previous studies, the motor task effect is specific to one-legged stance (cf. no effects for running in previous research). The motor-cognition interaction found in the P2 indicates that the more difficult motor task (one-legged stance) facilitates cognitive task performance.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
3.
Artist-for-work metonymy Weiland-Breckle, Hanna; Schumacher, Petra B.
The mental lexicon,
01/2017, Volume:
12, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Abstract There is an on-going debate about how the language system handles expressions that may refer to different word senses. Some theories propose derivational operations triggered by a ...type-mismatch; others assume underspecified lexical representations that engage in sense selection. Previous studies yielded mixed evidence. To further understand the diverse results and to tease apart type conflicts from sense selection, we conducted an ERP study on one type of metonymy using question-answer pairs. We capitalized on the fact that the metonymic relation could be anticipated by a wh -word, yielding a type clash between the wh -word and the predicate that cannot be resolved in the question ( Whom did she read? vs. What did she read? ) – in contrast to the answer ( She read Brecht. ). These conditions were contrasted with a non-metonymic reading. The results revealed a pronounced N400 at the verb of the whom- question in contrast to the questions without a type clash, and no reliable differences at the artist’s name in the answer. We therefore argue for an underspecification account for this metonymy-type which is not preceded by the detection of a type conflict. In comparison with other metonymy-types, this substantiates a classification of sense alternations into sense selection and sense creation.
In order to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and learning achievement in the field of semantics, we developed the board game Seamantix, which supports teaching in introductory semantics through ...autonomous learning. Seamantix focuses on basic semantic knowledge including semantic relations, propositional logic, truth-conditional semantics, semantic roles and verb classifications. Players of Seamantix explain semantic notions without speaking by positioning tokens on pictograms and thereby provide their fellow players with critical cues. An evaluation of the learning curve via a practice test presented before and after exposure to the board game revealed that students who played the game showed a significant improvement compared to a non-playing control group. Furthermore, the majority of the players rated the design and material associated with the game positively and indicated that they enjoyed playing it.
Theories on metaphor and metonymy make different claims about the nature of the underlying processes in the computation of these two types of language use, i.e., whether they differ or not. ...Experimental investigations of metonymy and metaphor have generally not compared these two phenomena in a straightforward manner among others due to structural variability. To overcome this shortcoming, we conducted a study in German that used adjective–noun combinations to contrast metaphor and metonymy directly in an ERP-study during reading for comprehension. By combining three different nouns with one adjective in predicative position we construed adjective–noun pairs with literal (the baby was lively), metonymic (the eyes were lively) or metaphoric (the speed was lively) relations. The data revealed a more pronounced N400 for the metaphoric relations in comparison to the literal controls. We argue that the enhanced cost for metaphors reflects the activation process of two unrelated domains via mapping or extended predication. The metonymic adjective–noun pairs only showed a small trend to differ from the other two conditions. This might indicate that metonymies require mapping processes or shifts only within a single domain or domain matrix. Moreover, in contrast to previous studies, we did not find a Late Positivity. We explain this result with regard to different discourse representational consequences arising during combinatorial processing.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, UL, UM, UPUK
Introductory seminars to German linguistics lay the foundation for further linguistic course work and the students’ interest and advancement in specific topics. Therefore, it is essential for ...students to understand and remember elementary terminology and methodology and to be able to apply and transfer their knowledge. To support teaching through autonomous learning and to deepen the students’ knowledge and motivation in phonetics and phonology, we developed the board game Pho:nix based on the well-known ScrabbleTM board game. We modified the game by exchanging letters for phonemes and by adding event cards covering further knowledge relevant to the subject area of phonology and phonetics. We invited students of introductory seminars to play the game and to participate in an assessment to evaluate the game qualitatively and quantitively. We found that students who played the game twice showed a significant improvement relative to a non-playing control group. Additionally, the game was rated very positive by the majority of the players, for instance with respect to the fun factor or additional benefits for exam preparation.
German deverbal nominalizations in -ung denote a broad variety of sortal types, including events, result states and different kinds of objects, thus being a typical instance of systematic polysemy, ...or more precisely an instance of Nunberg’s (1995) ‘dense metonymy’. Brandtner & von Heusinger (2010) argue that these nominalizations do not have a complex lexical representation such as Pustejowsky’s dot objects, but rather an underspecified representation that is specified in the compositional process, pointing out the unacceptability of copredications involving predicates with different selectional restrictions. However, there are such constructions that are acceptable, counter to their predictions. To account for these they apply a second, coercion operation, namely Nunberg’s (1995) pragmatic process of predicate transfer; they thus explain copredication of nominalizations by two different processes: the first predicate semantically restricts the nominalization to one particular type, while the second predicate is subject to predicate transfer, such that it then can be applied to the determined type of the nominalization. According to Nunberg, this predicate transfer process is restricted by two pragmatic conditions: (i) there must be a salient functional relation between the original and the shifted meaning, and (ii) there must be ‘noteworthy’ information expressed by the sentence. In this paper we investigate Brandtner & von Heusinger’s account and the predictions made by Nunberg experimentally by testing the acceptability of reading shifts using judgement experiments, carefully controlling for contextual and lexical variables. The results reveal that the effect of the salience and noteworthiness conditions, which we reformulate as one single condition on relatedness, is psychologically real and accounts for the contrasts in readings in Nunberg’s specific examples. However, the results also show that the effect is not specific to the reading shift environments, but is rather a background coherence effect of priming or plausibility. The analysis as predicate transfer would thus corroborate the claim that there is complex representation for nominalization, but rather an incremental specification process.
PDF