Piñango Maria M, Zhang Muye, Foster-Hanson Emily, Negishi Michiro, Lacadie Cheryl, Constable R Todd
Department of Linguistics, Yale University.
Department of Psychology, New York University.
Cogn Sci. 2017 Mar;41 Suppl 2:351-378. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12341. Epub 2016 Feb 17.
We examine metonymy at psycho- and neurolinguistic levels, seeking to adjudicate between two possible processing implementations (one- vs. two-mechanism). We compare highly conventionalized systematic metonymy (producer-for-product: "All freshmen read O'Connell") to lesser-conventionalized circumstantial metonymy ("[a waitress says to another:] 'Table 2 asked for more coffee."'). Whereas these two metonymy types differ in terms of contextual demands, they each reveal a similar dependency between the named and intended conceptual entities (e.g., Jackendoff, 1997; Nunberg, 1979, 1995). We reason that if each metonymy yields a distinct processing time course and substantially non-overlapping preferential localization pattern, it would not only support a two-mechanism view (one lexical, one pragmatic) but would suggest that conventionalization acts as a linguistic categorizer. By contrast, a similar behavior in time course and localization would support a one-mechanism view and the inference that conventionalization acts instead as a modulator of contextual felicitousness, and that differences in interpretation introduced by conventionalization are of degree, not of kind. Results from three paradigms: self-paced reading (SPR), event-related potentials (ERP), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), reveal the following: no main effect by condition (metonymy vs. matched literal control) for either metonymy type immediately after the metonymy trigger, and a main effect for only the Circumstantial metonymy one word post-trigger (SPR); a N400 effect across metonymy types and a late positivity for Circumstantial metonymy (ERP); and a highly overlapping activation connecting the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (fMRI). Altogether, the pattern observed does not reach the threshold required to justify a two-mechanism system. Instead, the pattern is more naturally (and conservatively) understood as resulting from the implementation of a generalized referential dependency mechanism, modulated by degree of context dependence/conventionalization, thus supporting architectures of language whereby "lexical" and "pragmatic" meaning relations are encoded along a cline of contextual underspecification.
我们在心理语言学和神经语言学层面研究转喻,试图在两种可能的加工实现方式(单机制与双机制)之间做出裁决。我们将高度常规化的系统转喻(生产者代产品:“所有新生都读奥康奈尔的作品”)与不太常规化的情境转喻(“[一名女服务员对另一名说:]‘2号桌要再来点咖啡。’”)进行比较。尽管这两种转喻类型在语境要求方面存在差异,但它们各自都揭示了所提及的概念实体与预期的概念实体之间类似的依存关系(例如,杰肯多夫,1997; Nunberg,1979,1995)。我们推断,如果每种转喻都产生独特的加工时间进程和基本不重叠的偏好定位模式,那么这不仅会支持双机制观点(一种是词汇机制,一种是语用机制),还会表明常规化起到语言分类器的作用。相比之下,时间进程和定位方面的相似行为将支持单机制观点,并推断常规化反而起到语境适宜性调节器的作用,并且常规化所引入的解释差异是程度上的,而非类型上的。来自三种范式的结果:自定步速阅读(SPR)、事件相关电位(ERP)和功能磁共振成像(fMRI),揭示了以下情况:在转喻触发后紧接着,两种转喻类型在条件(转喻与匹配的字面控制)方面均无主效应,而仅情境转喻在触发后一个词时有主效应(SPR);跨转喻类型的N400效应以及情境转喻的晚期正波(ERP);以及连接左腹外侧前额叶皮层和左背外侧前额叶皮层的高度重叠激活(fMRI)。总体而言,所观察到的模式未达到证明双机制系统所需的阈值。相反,该模式更自然(且保守)地被理解为由一种广义指称依存机制的实施所导致,该机制受语境依赖性/常规化程度的调节,从而支持语言架构,据此“词汇”和“语用”意义关系沿着语境欠明确定义的连续统进行编码。