Cover not available

Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 12:2 (2017) ► pp.219–233

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

Artist-for-work metonymy

Type clash or underspecification?

 | Department of German Language and Literature I, University of Cologne, Germany
 | Department of German Language and Literature I, University of Cologne, Germany
Published online: 15 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.16014.wei
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.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods and materials
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
    • Procedure
      • EEG recording procedure
      • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (28)
References
Asher, N. (2011). Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1988). On the grammar of local prepositions. In: M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch, I. Zimmermann. (Eds). Syntax, Semantik und Lexikon (pp. 1–65). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and language, 117(3), 133–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brouwer, H., & Hoeks, J. C. (2013). A time and place for language comprehension: mapping the N400 and the P600 to a minimal cortical network. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 71, 758. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 121, 15–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, M. (2010). Semantic underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(3), 166–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishbein, J., & Harris, J. A. (2014). Making sense of Kafka: structural biases induce early sense commitment for metonyms. Journal of Memory and Language, 761, 94–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391–3394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 277–291. 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(6), 1366–1383.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 595–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 121, 556–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(332), 1582–1589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & K. D. Federmeier. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 621: 621–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics:(de) constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2013). It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 993.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piñango, M. M., Zhang, M., Foster‐Hanson, E., Negishi, M., Lacadie, C., & Constable, R. T. (2016). Metonymy as Referential Dependency: Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Arguments for a Unified Linguistic Treatment. Cognitive science, 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. B. (2011). The hepatitis called … : Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. In J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics / semantics (p. 199–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: toward a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 41, 677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Content and context in incremental processing: ’the ham sandwich’ revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168(1), 151–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. B., & Hung, Y. C. (2012). Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(2), 295–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36(05), 559–570. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 81, 583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., & Min, B. (2012). Neural dynamics of animacy processing in language comprehension: ERP evidence from the interpretation of classifier–noun combinations. Brain and Language, 120(3), 321–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Lombard, Alizée, Richard Huyghe, Lucie Barque & Doriane Gras
2023. Regular polysemy and novel word-sense identification. The Mental Lexicon 18:1 ► pp. 94 ff. DOI logo
Schumacher, Petra B., Hanna Weiland-Breckle, Guendalina Reul & Ingmar Brilmayer
2023. Tracking meaning evolution in the brain: Processing consequences of conventionalization. Cognition 240 ► pp. 105598 ff. DOI logo
Vicente, Agustin
2021. Approaches to co-predication: Inherent polysemy and metaphysical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 182 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
Ortega-Andrés, Marina & Agustín Vicente
2019. Polysemy and co-predication. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Schumacher, Petra B., Patrick Brandt & Hanna Weiland-Breckle
2018. Online Processing of “Real” and “Fake”: The Cost of Being Too Strong. In The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 4], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Weiland-Breckle, Hanna & Petra B. Schumacher
2018. A direct comparison of metonymic and metaphoric relations in adjective–noun pairs. Acta Linguistica Academica 65:2-3 ► pp. 443 ff. DOI logo
Schumacher, Petra B.
2017. Semantic‐Pragmatic Processing. In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 392 ff. DOI logo
Schumacher, Petra B.
2018. On type composition and agentivity. Theoretical Linguistics 44:1-2 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue