Cover not available

Article In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Metaphorically speaking

Conversational behavioural patterns in the use of linguistic metaphors

ORCiD logo with link | University of Gothenburg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Gothenburg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Gothenburg
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
While abundant studies have examined cognitive efforts required for metaphor comprehension, what happens during metaphor production remains underexplored. Based on 19 triadic conversations produced by 57 participants, this paper examines conversational behaviours associated with the use of metaphors and deliberate metaphors in particular. The data includes 2,631 conversational turns, of which 690 contained metaphors and 45 had deliberate metaphors. Four conversational behaviours were examined: turn duration, within-turn pause duration, between-turn gap duration, and co-speech gestures. Compared with turns without metaphors, those with metaphors lasted significantly longer and were more likely to co-occur with gestures, whereas differences in within-turn pause and between-turn gaps were not significant. The results suggest that metaphor production involves more cognitive efforts or a stronger awareness of the ongoing communication; however, metaphor processing by the listener does not necessarily take more time. The effect of metaphor deliberateness was not significant in any of the conversational behaviours.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Metaphors in conversation: Findings from the semiotic approach
    • 2.2Experimental approaches to metaphor processing
    • 2.3Conversational behaviours
      • 2.3.1Duration of conversational turns
        • Turn duration and disfluencies
      • 2.3.2Within-turn pauses
      • 2.3.3Between-turn gaps
      • 2.3.4Co-speech gestures
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1The balloon task
    • 3.2Behavioural data
    • 3.3Linguistic data
      • Metaphor identification
      • Deliberate metaphor identification
      • Interrater reliability checks
    • 3.4Research questions and methods
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Descriptive statistics
    • 4.2Statistical modelling results
      • 4.2.1Turn duration
        • Turn duration and disfluencies
      • 4.2.2Within-turn pause duration
      • 4.2.3Between-turn gap duration
      • 4.2.4Co-speech gesture
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions and future work
  • Notes
  • References
References (74)
References
Bambini, Valentina, Bott, Lewis, & Schumacher, Petra B. (2021). It is not always a matter of time: Addressing the costs of metaphor and metonymy through a speed-accuracy trade-off study. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale, 75(2), 189–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen G., Lickley, Robin J., & Aylett, Matthew P. (2001). Is disfluency just difficulty? In Proceedings of the international workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (DiSS’01) (pp. 97–100). International Speech Communication Association.
Berthold, Andre & Jameson, Anthony. (1999). Interpreting symptoms of cognitive load in speech input. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference (pp. 235–244). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohrn, Isabel C., Altmann, Ulrike, & Jacobs, Arthur M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language — a quantitative meta–analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50(11), 2669–2683. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Marianna, Pilgram, Roosmaryn, & van den Heerik, Romy. (2017). Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic feature norms classification. Behavior Research Methods, 491, 1984–2001. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortfeld, Heather, Leon, Silva D., Bloom, Jonathan E., Schober, Michael F., & Brennan, Susan E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank, Frisson, Steven, & Sandra, Dominiek. (2001). Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1–2), 87–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne & Maslen, Robert. (Eds.). (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campisi, Emanuela & Özyürek, Asli. (2013). Iconicity as a communicative strategy: Recipient design in multimodal demonstrations for adults and children. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 14–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. (2020). A multimodal perspective on MCA: Cues of (possible) metacommunicative awareness. In Camila Di Biase-Dyson & Markus Egg (Eds.), Drawing Attention to Metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities (pp. 63–91). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citron, Francesca M., & Goldberg, Adele E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citron, Francesca M., Cacciari, Cristina, Funcke, Jakob M., Hsu, Chun-Ting, & Jacobs, Arthur M. (2019). Idiomatic expressions evoke stronger emotional responses in the brain than literal sentences. Neuropsychologia, 1311, 233–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., & Tree, Jean E. Fox. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1),73–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clough, Sharice & Duff, Melissa C. (2020). The role of gesture in communication and cognition: Implications for understanding and treating neurogenic communication disorders. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 141, 323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Columbus, Georgie, Sheikh, Naveed A., Côté-Lecaldare, Marilena, Häuser, Katja, Baum, Shari R., & Titone, Debra. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An eye movement study of sentence reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 81, 1057. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana. (2008). Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In Raymond W. Gibbs. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 177–194). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuccio, Valentina & Steen, Gerard. (2019). Deliberate metaphors and embodied simulation. In Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando (Ed.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse (pp. 185–204). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Desai, Rutvik H. (2022). Are metaphors embodied? The neural evidence. Psychological Research, 86(8), 2417–2433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vries, Clarissa, Reijnierse, Gudrun, & Willems, Roel M. (2018). Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(1), 135–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galati, Alexia & Brennan, Susan E. (2014). Speakers adapt gestures to addressees’ knowledge: Implications for models of co-speech gesture. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 435–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, Vittorio & Lakoff, George. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 56–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. (2008). How metaphors create categories-quickly. In Raymond W. Gibbs. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. (1954). On the variability of the speed of talking and on its relation to the length of utterances in conversations. British Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 94–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Healey, Patrik G. T., Plant, Nicola, Howes, Christine, & Lavelle, Mary. (2015). When words fail: Collaborative gestures during clarification dialogues. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Technical report (pp. 23–29). AAAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilliard, Caitlin & Cook, Susan Wagner. (2016). Bridging gaps in common ground: Speakers design their gestures for their listeners. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(1), 91–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoetjes, Marieke, Krahmer, Emiel, & Swerts, Marc. (2015). On what happens in gesture when communication is unsuccessful. Speech Communication, 721, 160–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, Judith, Kendrick, Kobin H., & Levinson, Stephen C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1900–1908. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hostetter, Autumn B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howes, Christine & Lavelle, Mary. (2023). Quirky conversations: How people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia do dialogue differently. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 378(1875), 20210480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In Gene H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaal, Anna Albertha. (2012). Metaphor in conversation [Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam].
Kahneman, Daniel. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In David McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro & Davies, Thomas Stephen. (2009). Competing conceptual representations trigger co-speech representational gestures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 761–775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lai, Vicky Tzuyin, Curran, Tim, & Menn, Lise. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 12841, 145–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lavelle, Mary, Healey, Patrik G. T., & McCabe, Rose. (2012). Is nonverbal communication disrupted in interactions involving patients with schizophrenia? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 39(5), 1150–1158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. J. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lickley, Robin. (2001). Dialogue moves and disfluency rates. In Proceedings of the workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (DiSS’01) (pp. 93–96). International Speech Communication Association.
. (2015). Fluency and disfluency. In Melissa A. Redford (Ed.), The handbook of speech production (pp. 445–474). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per. (1982). The written language bias in linguistics. Linköping University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mon, Serena K., Nencheva, Mira, Citron, Francesca M., Lew-Williams, Casey, & Goldberg, Adele E. (2021). Conventional metaphors elicit greater real-time engagement than literal paraphrases or concrete sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 1211, 104285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morsella, Ezequiel & Krauss, Robert M. (2004). The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech. The American Journal of Psychology, 117(3), 411–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Christian, Großmann-Hutter, Barbara, Jameson, Anthony, Rummer, Ralf, & Wittig, Frank. (2001). Recognizing time pressure and cognitive load on the basis of speech: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on user modeling (UM 2001) (pp. 24–33). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia & Tag, Susanne. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6(s1), 85–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olkoniemi, Henri, Ranta, Henri, & Kaakinen, Johanna K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–450.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onishi, Kristine H., & Murphy, Gregory L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory & Cognition, 211, 763–772. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew, Schallert, Diane L., Reynolds, Ralph E., & Antos, Stephen J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qiu, Amy Han, Vanzan, Vanessa, Soupiona, Chara, & Howes, Christine. (2024). Disfluencies in conversation: a comparison of utterances with and without metaphors. In Proceedings of the 28th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (Article 13). SemDial.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, Gudrun. (2017). The Value of Deliberate Metaphor. [PhD-Thesis — Research and graduation external, Universiteit van Amsterdam].
Reijnierse, Gudrun, Burgers, Christian, Krennmayr, Tina, & Steen, Gerard. (2020). The role of co-text in the analysis of potentially deliberate metaphor. In Camila Di Biase-Dyson & Markus Egg (Eds.), Drawing attention to metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities (pp. 15–38). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 21, 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, David. (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Sean G., Torreira, Francisco, & Levinson, Stephen C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: A corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shriberg, Elizabeth. (1996). Disfluency in Switchboard. In Proceedings of the international conference on spoken language processing (pp. 11–14). International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. (2011). From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik.de, 211, 83–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 67–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2023). Thinking by metaphor, fast and slow: Deliberate metaphor theory offers a new model for metaphor and its comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 141, 1242888. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Dorst, Aletta, Herrmann, J. Berenike, Kaal, Anna, Krennmayr, Tina, & Pasma, Tryntje. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tay, Dennis. (2016). A variational approach to deliberate metaphors. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 277–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2024). Affective engagement with metaphor in introductory statistics education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 94(1), 105–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tay, Dennis, Huang, Jin, & Zeng, Huiheng. (2020). Prompting strategies and outcomes in picture-based counseling. In Bernadette Watson & Janice Kreiger (Eds.), Expanding horizons in health communication: An Asian perspective (pp. 29–46). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, Paul & Boroditsky, Lera. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue