Cover not available

In:Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage
Edited by Augusto Soares da Silva
[Figurative Thought and Language 11] 2021
► pp. 241–284

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

On figurative ambiguity, marking, and low-salience meanings

 | Tel-Aviv University
 | The Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo
 | Tel-Aviv University
Published online: 19 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.08giv
Abstract
This paper discusses the phenomenon of marked ambiguation, when more than one meaning of an ambiguity is simultaneously applicable, and outlines an account for such marking within the Low-Salience Marking Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, ambiguity markers (e.g., double entendre, in the full sense of the word) boost meanings low on salience (Givoni, 2011; Givoni, Giora, and Bergerbest, 2013). Low-salience meanings are meanings less frequent, less familiar, less prototypical, and less conventional (Giora, 1997, 2003). Results from two experiments conducted in Hebrew support the hypothesis. They show that marking figurative polysemy results in higher preference and faster response times for less-salient meanings, challenging modular (Fodor, 1983), literal-first (Grice, 1975), and underspecification (Frisson and Pickering, 2001) accounts of lexical access.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction – disambiguation vs. ambiguation
  • 2.The phenomenon of marking multiple meanings
    • 2.1Why ambiguation? Why marking?
    • 2.2Is ambiguation the same as punning?
    • 2.3Does ambiguation always involve a figurative meaning and a literal meaning?
  • 3.Ambiguity processing models and their predictions for marked ambiguity
    • 3.1Which meanings benefit from marking?
    • 3.2The Low-Salience Marking Hypothesis
      • 3.2.1Predictions
      • 3.2.2Previous findings
  • 4.Experiments
    • 4.1Experiment 1 – an offline study
      • Aim
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Sentences
      • Probe-words
      • Markers
        • Pretest 1.Meaning relatedness
        • Pretest 2.Meaning prevalence
        • Pretest 3.Online salience
      • Probe pretests summary
        • Pretest 4.Marking coherence
      • Procedure
      • Results
      • Discussion
    • 4.2Experiment 2 – an online study
      • Aim
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Results
      • Discussion
  • 5.General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (80)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2017). Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 201–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask, 12, 3–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2020). Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in an affect-centered, pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 15–65). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double Grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (1997). “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It”: Overstatement, understatement, and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Irony performance and perception: What underlies verbal, situational and other ironies? In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 19–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Severens, E. (2007). Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: When cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language, 100(2), 172–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958–968. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doogan, S., Ghosh, A., Chen, H., & Veale, T. (2017). Idiom savant at Semeval-2017 Task 7: Detection and interpretation of English puns. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), 103–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., Katz, A. N., & Patterson, C. (2006). Context-independent influence of explicit markers on proverb interpretation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28, p. 2481.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 149–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frost, R., & Plaut, D. (2001). The word-frequency database for printed Hebrew, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, online access: [URL]
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2016). Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1985). Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today, 6(4), 699–715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Becker, I. (2019). S/he is not the most sparkling drink in the pub: Global vs. local cue – which will reign supreme? Metaphor and Symbol, 34(3), 141–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Becker, I. (2020). How defaultness affects text production: A corpus-based study of the Defaultness Hypothesis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 66–77). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O. (2017). The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Meytes, D., Tamir, A., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O. (2017). Defaultness shines while affirmation pales: On idioms, sarcasm, and pleasure. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 219–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E. (2014). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givoni, S. (2011). Low-salience marking. M.A. Manuscript. Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Marking multiple meanings. Doctoral Dissertation. Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givoni, S., & Giora, R. (2018). Salience and defaultness. In F. Liedtke, & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch Pragmatik (pp. 207–213). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givoni, S., Bergerbest, D., & Giora, R. (in press). Marking multiple meanings – salience and context effects. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D. (2013). How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hills, D. (1997). Aptness and truth in verbal metaphor. Philosophical Topics, 25(1), 117–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., & Ferretti, T. R. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 193–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Reading proverbs in context: The role of explicit markers. Discourse Processes, 36(1), 19–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittay, E. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: an EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123, 11–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livnat, Z. (1995). Kamuvan, Kayadua’, Bekitsur: On the rhetoric force of several sentential adverbials. In O. R. Schwarzwald, & Y. Shlesinger (Eds.), Hadassah Kantor Jubilee Book: Language research papers (pp. 111–116). Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press (in Hebrew).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mashal, N., & Faust, M. (2009). Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14, 573–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Hendler, T. (2005). The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084–2100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain & Language, 100, 115–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McHugh, T., & Buchanan, L. (2016). Pun processing from a psycholinguistic perspective: Introducing the Model of Psycholinguistics Hemispheric Incongruity Laughter (M.PHIL). Laterality: Asymmetries of body, brain and cognition, 21(4–6): Special issue on the Legacy of M. P. Bryden. 455–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Chamizo Domínguez, P. J. (2003). The use of literally. Vice or virtue? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 193–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. S. (2009). A linguistic account of wordplay: The lexical grammar of punning. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1794–1809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Semantic asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: Evidence from the disambiguation of heterophonic versus homophonic homographs. Brain and Cognition, 70, 154–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). The semantic processing of verbs; Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 940–961.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M. (2020). Hyperbolic figures. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 91–106). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, M. J. (1992). Folk theories of meaning and principles of conventionality: Encoding literal attitudes via stance adverbs. In A. Lehrer, & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp. 333–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.) Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwint, C. A., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. N. (2006). The influence of explicit markers on slow cortical potentials during figurative language processing. 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Proceedings, 768–773.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meaning of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaviv, T. (2018). Legamrei – the evolution of an intensifier. Helkat Lashon, 51, 152–174 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(5), 875–881. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siloni, T. (1995). On participial relatives and complementizers D: A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 445–487. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 645–659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition, 37(4), 529–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Voort, M. E. C., & Vonk, W. (1995). You don’t die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaert, E. -J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 283–299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vicente, A. (2018). Polysemy and word meaning: an account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words. Philosophical Studies, 175(4), 947–968. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence from interrelated meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zewi, T. (1999). Time in nominal sentences in the Semitic languages. Journal of Semitic Studies, 44, 195–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue