• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olmayanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olmayanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Processing of metaphoric language in native language and second language: A self-paced reading study Anadilinde ve ikinci dilde metaforik dilin işlemlenmesi: öz-ilerlemeli okuma çalışması

Date
2020
Author
Özkan, Sümeyra
Dikmen, Merve
AYGÜNEŞ, Mehmet
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
© 2018 Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, İstanbul.This study aims to see whether any difference between native language speakers (L1) and second language speakers (L2) exists in terms of the processing of expressions containing different levels of figurative meaning (literal, conventional metaphors, novel metaphors and semantically anomalous) and metaphor types that reflect different cognitive functions (orientational metaphors, ontological metaphors and structural metaphors). To this end, self-paced reading was used in the study. It was observed that the processing of novel metaphors and anomalous expressions, as they contain figurative meaning, took longer than literal expressions and conventional metaphors. It was found that the processing pattern was the same in both L1 and L2 groups. These findings support the view suggesting that the figurative expressions and literal expressions are interpreted in parallel / in equal time (Glucksberg, 2003; McElree and Nordlie, 1999), and oppose the one that metaphors which are perceived as conventional by L1 speakers, can be perceived as novel metaphors by the L2 group (Mashal et al. 2015; Türker, 2016). In terms of metaphor types, while there was no difference in the processing of metaphors of different types in the L1 group, it was observed that the orientational metaphors in the L2 group took longer to process than ontological metaphors and structural metaphors. It is thought that orientational metaphors will cause an additional cognitive load in L2 group because of the possible reasons such as a) orientational metaphors’ providing less conceptual structure for target concept, b) L2 group’s differences in their L1 and L2 in terms of manner features c) the differences in the use of visual imagery in L1 and L2 to process the orientational metaphors.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/4489
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.725338
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85087116056&origin=inward
Collections
  • Makale [92796]

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 


Hakkımızda
Açık Erişim PolitikasıVeri Giriş Rehberleriİletişim
sherpa/romeo
Dergi Adı/ISSN || Yayıncı

Exact phrase only All keywords Any

BaşlıkbaşlayaniçerenISSN

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypes

My Account

LoginRegister

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV