Six experiments investigating the relationship of familiarity and context to the processing of metaphor are presented. Experiment 1 compares time to understand sets containing idiom or metaphor targets following 1-2 sentence contexts in four conditions: NONLITERAL, where the context was completed by an idiom or metaphor, PARAPHRASE, where the same context was completed by a literal target with the same meaning, SURPRISE, where the context was completed by a less-anticipated literal target, and LITERAL, where the target from the NONLITERAL condition was used in its literal sense in a different context. In Experiment 2, sets of dead metaphors replaced the idiom sets, and the metaphor sets had novel metaphors. Experiment 3 matched the targets in each condition for overall printed word frequency, to investigate whether word familiarity was interacting with type of usage. It also included an UNFAMILIAR condition, where the same context was completed by a much less familiar word used literally. Experiment 4 took 20 contexts from Experiment 3 and asked subjects to generate their own endings. Experiment 5 replicated Experiment 3 but with a two-target semantic choice instead of a single response. Experiment 6 shortened contexts and reduced their information content. Its purpose was to see how much context was contributing to understanding, and whether some conditions would be more affected than others. The results may be interpreted as indicating that familiarity with the use of a word is important in determining speed of understanding. Dead metaphors could be understood just as quickly as words used literally, but novel metaphors took longer. Contextual expectations are also a powerful adjunct to the understanding process. When expectations are thwarted, errors and understanding time increases. Metaphor understanding is interpreted as a class-inclusion process in the manner described by Glucksberg and Keysar (1990), where a word used metaphorically is viewed as a prototypical exemplar of a hierarchically superordinate class that becomes extended to incorporate the context topic. This process takes time, but metaphors have a response latency advantage over surprising or unfamiliar literal words encountered in context. When context is reduced, metaphors are still advantageous in terms of time, but are less useful to depth of understanding.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Psychology Department, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Psychology Dept., 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Dissertation (Ph.D. in Computer Science)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2009. / Dissertation supervisor: Singh, Gurminder. "June 2009." Description based on title screen as viewed on July 14, 2009. Author(s) subject terms: mobile computing, context awareness, activities as context. Includes bibliographical references (p. 113-117). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A.)--Rowan University, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references.

Six experiments investigating the relationship of familiarity and context to the processing of metaphor are presented. Experiment 1 compares time to understand sets containing idiom or metaphor targets following 1-2 sentence contexts in four conditions: NONLITERAL, where the context was completed by an idiom or metaphor, PARAPHRASE, where the same context was completed by a literal target with the same meaning, SURPRISE, where the context was completed by a less-anticipated literal target, and LITERAL, where the target from the NONLITERAL condition was used in its literal sense in a different context. In Experiment 2, sets of dead metaphors replaced the idiom sets, and the metaphor sets had novel metaphors. Experiment 3 matched the targets in each condition for overall printed word frequency, to investigate whether word familiarity was interacting with type of usage. It also included an UNFAMILIAR condition, where the same context was completed by a much less familiar word used literally. Experiment 4 took 20 contexts from Experiment 3 and asked subjects to generate their own endings. Experiment 5 replicated Experiment 3 but with a two-target semantic choice instead of a single response. Experiment 6 shortened contexts and reduced their information content. Its purpose was to see how much context was contributing to understanding, and whether some conditions would be more affected than others. The results may be interpreted as indicating that familiarity with the use of a word is important in determining speed of understanding. Dead metaphors could be understood just as quickly as words used literally, but novel metaphors took longer. Contextual expectations are also a powerful adjunct to the understanding process. When expectations are thwarted, errors and understanding time increases. Metaphor understanding is interpreted as a class-inclusion process in the manner described by Glucksberg and Keysar (1990), where a word used metaphorically is viewed as a prototypical exemplar of a hierarchically superordinate class that becomes extended to incorporate the context topic. This process takes time, but metaphors have a response latency advantage over surprising or unfamiliar literal words encountered in context. When context is reduced, metaphors are still advantageous in terms of time, but are less useful to depth of understanding. / Arts, Faculty of / Psychology, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (M.S.)--Auburn University, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (ℓ. 46-57)

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 39-41).

Thesis (Ph. D.) -- University of Alberta, 2010. / "A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta." Title from pdf file main screen (viewed on February 12, 2010) Includes bibliographical references.

This study focused on the comprehension and cognitive processing of texts in biology by 36 graduate science students for whom Chinese was their first (L1) and English their second language (L2). The students in the study were from two disciplines: one in biology, and the other in engineering. These groups were subdivided into less proficient L2 (i.e., low-intermediate to intermediate) and more proficient L2 group (i.e., high-intermediate to high). From the perspective of a stratified model, the study examined L1 and L2 comprehension of general biology texts. Specifically, it investigated the effects of readers' domain-specific knowledge and language proficiency on various levels of discourse processing. It also examined two methodological issues: the effects of language of recall on processing of semantic and syntactic information from the L2 texts and the validity of using self-rating of text difficulty or content familiarity to index background knowledge. / Domain-specific knowledge was found to affect every aspect of comprehension of semantic information that was assessed in the study for both the L1 and the L2 texts. It also affected efficiency of processing for the L2 texts. Language proficiency, on the other hand, consistently affected lower-level processing. However, it appeared to have few concomitant effects on processing of semantic information. These results were consistent with predictions from stratified models of discourse comprehension in which processing of syntactic and semantic information are viewed as being both multilevel and modular. The results of the study also suggest the importance of investigating background knowledge in content-specific terms. Although the science students generally were comparable both in their knowledge of science text structures and in their patterns of comprehension of different types of semantic information, this comparability did not result in comparable comprehension. Rather, comprehension depended heavily on domain-specific knowledge. / With reference to linguistic distance, the results of this study suggest that caution is needed in applying conclusions drawn from studies of speakers of languages of the same Indo-European family to speakers of languages of greater linguistic distance such as Chinese and English. The lack of production effects observed in this study may be due to differential processing of syntactic information as well as differential processing strategies that many readers reported to have used with different language conditions. Finally, the general discrepancy between perceived text difficulty vs. comprehension and efficiency of processing as assessed by the objective measures suggests caution in using self-rating of text difficulty or content familiarity to index background knowledge.