Factors that Influence the Processing of Noun-Noun Metaphors

References

• Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 45–51. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5
   Google Scholar
• Al-Azary, H., & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 296–307. doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0650-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Azary, H., McAuley, T., Buchanan, L., & Katz, A. N. (2019). Semantic processing of metaphor: A case-study of deep dyslexia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 51, 297–308. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kuçera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 28–34. doi:10.3758/BF03211572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forgács, B., Bardolph, M. D., Amsel, B. D., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Metaphors are physical and abstract: ERPs to metaphorically modified nouns resemble ERPs to abstract language. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(Article), 28. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00028
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and the dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 365–389. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L. (2002). Metaphoric interpretations of comparison-based combinations. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(3), 161–178. doi:10.1207/S15327868MS1703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., Burry, J. C., & Adams, J. T. (2020). Production of multi-word referential phrases: Inclusion of over-specifying information and a preference for modifier-noun. In S. Schulte imWalde & E. Smolka (Eds.), The role of constituents in multiword expressions: An interdisciplinary, cross-lingual approach (pp. 135–158). Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehensionofmodifier-noun combinations. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 71–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2014). Typing time as an index of morphological and semantic effects during English compound processing. Lingue e Linguaggio, 13(2), 241–262.
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Gorrie, M. C. (2005). Sentential context and the interpretation of familiar open-compounds and novel modifier-noun phrases. Language and Speech, 48(2), 203–219. doi:10.1177/00238309050480020401
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., Spicer, P., Wong, D., Rubio, B., & Cruz, K. P. (2020). Is buttercup a kind of cup? Hyponymy and semantic transparency in compound words. Journal of Memory and Language, 113, 104110. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2020.104110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galinsky, A. D., & Glucksberg, S. (2000). Inhibition of the literal: Metaphors and idioms as judgmental primes. Social Cognition, 18(1), 35–54. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.1.35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 331–355. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 92–96. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50–67. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 277–293. doi:10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
   Google Scholar
• Goldvarg, Y., & Glucksberg, S. (1998). Conceptual combinations: The role of similarity. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(4), 243–255. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1304_1
   Google Scholar
• Gottfried, G. M. (1997). Using metaphors as modifiers: Children’s production of metaphoric compounds. Journal of Child Language, 24(3), 567–601. doi:10.1017/S0305000997003176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iakimova, G., Passerieux, C., & Hardy-Bayle, M. C. (2006). The understanding of metaphors in schizophrenia and depression. An experimental approach. Encephale, 32(6), 995–1002. doi:10.1016/S0013-7006(06)76279-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia, Y., Zan, H., Fan, M., Yu, S., & Wang, Z. (2014). Word relevance computation for noun-noun metaphor recognition. In X. Su & T. He (Eds.), Chinese lexical semantics. CLSW 2014. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 251–259). Switzerland: Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juhasz, B. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In R. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in the length of reference phrases as a function of social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1(1–12), 113–114. doi:10.3758/BF03342817
   Google Scholar
• Libben, G. (1993). A case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 16(2), 111–112. doi:10.1017/S0332586500002766
   Google Scholar
• Libben, G. (2005). Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La Revue Canadienne De Linguistique, 50(1–4), 267–283. doi:10.1017/S000841310000373X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84(1), 50–64. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (2001). Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1209–1219. doi:10.3758/BF03206390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 201–213. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, J., Sana, F., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2020). Is inhibition involved in the processing of opaque compound words? A study of individual difference. The Mental Lexicon, 15(2), 255–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio-Fernández, P. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics, 24(4), 345–371. doi:10.1093/jos/ffm006
   Google Scholar
• Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A. (2014). Adjective metaphors evoke negative meanings. PloS One, 9(2), e89008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalding, T. L., Gagné, C. L., Mullaly, A. C., & Ji, H. (2010). Relation-based interpretations of noun-noun phrases: A new theoretical approach. In S. Olson (Ed.), New impulses in word-formation (LinguistischeBerichteSonderheft 17) (pp. 283–315). Hamburg, Germany: Buske.
   Google Scholar
• Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L. (2007). Semantic property activation during the interpretation of combined concepts. The Mental Lexicon, 2(1), 25–47.
   Google Scholar
• 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, Article 583. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkes-Gibbs, D., & Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 183–194. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90010-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 434–453. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 167–183. doi:10.3758/BF03209392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 177–202. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 529–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456–1488. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zharikov, S., & Gentner, D. (2002). Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 976–981). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
   Google Scholar