Main Content

B2 - Polysemy and metaphors as a challenge for mental representations

PI and Ko-PI: Prof. Dr. C. Spieß und Prof. Dr. C. Kauschke

Research context

Figurative speech, which includes various forms of irony as well as the use of metonymy and metaphors, presents challenges for language users. This is partly due to the fact that figurative speech is characterized by semantic vagueness on the one hand. On the other hand, it relies on the cognitive ability to connect different conceptual domains. In order to recognize and understand metaphorical phenomena, certain cognitive abilities must be developed (such as the perception of analogies, i.e., perceiving similarities between two objects, using or accepting alternative terms for a reference object), and situational-contextual factors must also be considered (Spieß 2016). Another challenge is that any linguistic phenomenon can, in principle, be used metaphorically. It is only the context that reveals whether an expression is used metaphorically or not. The acquisition of metaphorical competence thus appears to be an exceptionally complex undertaking (cf. Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). Contrary to earlier studies on the acquisition of metaphorical production and comprehension (cf. Winner 1988, Augst 1978, among others), more recent research assumes that comprehension and use of metaphors is a process that begins early (at the age of 3-4 years according to Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020, Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). It has been shown that understanding (and using) metaphorical language phenomena does not pose a problem if the children’s world knowledge and linguistic competence is taken into account (Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020). Indefrey/Voigt 2017 distinguish 'pseudo-metaphorical' language use in early childhood from later metaphorical language use. Regardless of whether one refers to metaphorical or pseudo-metaphorical competence, children's world and experiential knowledge, along with the situational context of the conversation, significantly influence metaphorical language and should therefore be carefully considered in the research design. Furthermore, studies have found that children who demonstrated competence in forming analogies and using alternative terms were also better at understanding metaphors (cf. Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). While there are a few studies in the English-speaking world on the relationship between analogy perception, alternative designations, and metaphor comprehension (Pouscoulous 2014, Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020, Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020), there are hardly any recent studies in the German-speaking world, with few exceptions (cf. Indefrey/Voigt 2017). Based on German conversation and corpus data and/or experimental data (e.g., voting behavior games, assignment tasks).

The following topics can be addressed:

  • How does metaphorical understanding develop? What forms of metaphorical/figurative language are realized, understood, and mentally represented at what age (3-4 years, 6-7 years, 9-10 years) in the German language?
  • What cognitive abilities support metaphor acquisition (analogy perception, analogy formation, perception and use of alternative terms/names)?
  • Which metaphorical domains do children conceptualize during language acquisition? To what extent do linguistic patterns emerge that suggest mental representations?

References

Augst, Gerhard (1978): Spracherwerb von sechs bis sechzehn. Linguistische, psychologische, soziologische Grundlagen, Düsseldorf: Schwann Verlag.

Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous (2020): Metaphorical developing minds: The role of multiple factors in the development of metaphor comprehension. In: Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 235e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.08.008 

Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (1980): Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: UCP.

Pouscoulous, Nausicaa (2014): „The elevator’s buttocks“ Metaphorical abilities in children. In: Matthews, Danielle (ed.): Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. John Benjamins, 239-259.

Pouscoulous, Nausicaa/Tomasello, Michael (2020): Early birds: Metaphor understanding in 3-year-olds. In: Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 160e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.021 

Spieß, Constanze (2016): Metapher als multimodales kognitives Funktionsprinzip. In: Klug, Nina-Maria/Stöckl, Hartmus (Hrsg.): Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, S. 75-98.

Voigt, Svetlana/Indefrey, Peter (2017): Metaphernerwerb: eine empirische Studie bei Kindern im Alter von sechs bis vierzehn Jahren. In: metaphorik.de Online unter: https://www.metaphorik.de/sites/www.metaphorik.de/files/journal-pdf/vogt-indefrey_metaphorik-27.pdf

Winner, Ellen (1988): The Points of words. Children’s understanding of metaphor and irony, Harvard: HUP.