Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Department of Applied Linguistics and English Language Dissertations as a Second Language 4-30-2018 Beyond Literal Meaning: Linguistic And Cognitive Features Of Figurative Language Processing And Production STEPHEN SKALICKY Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss Recommended Citation SKALICKY, STEPHEN, "Beyond Literal Meaning: Linguistic And Cognitive Features Of Figurative Language Processing And Production." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/44 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY Under the Direction of Scott Crossley, PhD ABSTRACT Figurative language, such as metaphor and irony, has been studied by researchers in a wide variety of fields for the past several decades. A primary goal of this research has been to determine the processes underlying figurative language comprehension (e.g., how the figurative meaning of a metaphor is processed when compared to its literal meaning). While this research has led to a better understanding of the relation between figurative meaning and surface linguistic form, it has also served to underemphasize other potentially important influences on figurative language use, such as participant individual differences (e.g., cognitive ability, language background), linguistic features (e.g., lexical sophistication), and affective perceptions (e.g., humorous reactions). The purpose of this dissertation was to analyze figurative language use from a dynamic perspective taking into account a multitude of potential influences on the production, processing, and perception of figurative language through three separate studies. In the first two studies, 61 human participants were recruited to complete a metaphor and sarcasm production experiment as well as a satire processing and comprehension experiment. Individual differences measures (e.g., language background, working memory capacity) were collected, and the metaphors, sarcastic responses, and satirical texts were analyzed for linguistic features related to lexical sophistication and semantic cohesion. Results revealed that a number of individual differences and linguistic features were significant predictors of figurative language production ability, but also that these features interacted with contextual variables (e.g., the metaphor or sarcasm prompts) in a dynamic manner, making it difficult to identify consistent influences on figurative language production ability. Moreover, satire comprehension ability was significantly influenced by affective perceptions of sincerity, positivity, and humor, as well as by relative English age of onset, but not by processing time, suggesting that comprehension of satirical meaning is heavily dependent upon pragmatic inference. In the third study, 423 online workers completed an online creative production task, the results of which suggested that the presence of figurative language significantly increased perceptions of creativity, highlighting further connections between creativity and figurative language. Overall, these results demonstrate the importance of adopting a dynamic approach towards understanding figurative language use. INDEX WORDS: Satire, Sarcasm, Metaphor, Creativity, Individual differences, Psycholinguistics, Cognitive linguistics BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2018 Copyright by Stephen Cameron Skalicky 2018 BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY Committee Chair: Scott Crossley Committee: Nancy Bell Eric Friginal YouJin Kim Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University May 2018 iv DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my very understanding wife, Yeti Skalicky, who has supported me without question during every stage of this process. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the result of both my own efforts as well as many others who have supported me during my entire graduate career. Among the many people who have helped me, Nancy Bell was the first professor to actually treat me like a graduate student, and whose patience and enthusiasm led me through my master’s degree and towards my PhD. Without her I simply would not be where I am today, and I am extremely thrilled that I am able to continue working with her and that she is a member of my PhD committee. I thank Eric Friginal for the numerous opportunities he has provided for me, and for the fantastic time I had as part of the global TESOL program in Guangzhou. Eric is masterful when it comes to locating resources, publication outlets, and other opportunities for students, and truly cares about ensuring success for all of the graduate students in the Department of Applied Linguistics, and I feel extremely grateful to have worked with him. I also want to thank YouJin Kim, who has been an ally since my very first visit to Georgia State, even before I entered the program. Working for YouJin as a research assistant taught me a great deal about research methodology, second language acquisition, and even what a stranded preposition is. YouJin may work behind the scenes to look out for mine (and others) well being, but she should know that all of her effort is deeply appreciated. I am also indebted to several other members of the Department of Applied Linguistics. I thank Ute Römer for helping me learn Sinclarian corpus linguistic methods and applying them to a topic of my own interest. I thank Viviana Cortes for teaching me that it is perfectly fine for me to teach writing the way I want to teach it. I thank Stephanie Lindemann for her good humor and Diane Belcher for reminding me about the qualitative side of research. vi And, of course, I must provide big thanks to my advisor, Scott Crossley, for his mentorship and other assistance during my time in the PhD program. Although I did not envision working with Scott when I entered the program, I am extremely glad that I did. This is because Scott pushed me to become a true researcher, one who is not afraid to learn new things and instead welcomes the idea that there is always something new to learn. Scott has provided me with an uncountable amount of opportunities that have helped me develop a wide skill set and created memories that I will carry with me forever. Finally, to all of my friends at Georgia State, including Dave Chiesa, Cindy Berger, Kris Kyle, Rurik Tywoniw, Sarah Goodwin, and others, I thank you for being there and am truly happy that I was able to get to know you all. Working through a PhD is one of the loneliest processes I have endured, but it was made all the more better when surrounded by good friends. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ V LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... XV LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... XVII 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Current Study ..................................................................................................... 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 13 2.1 Types of Figurative Language ........................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Metaphor and Simile. ................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Verbal Irony and Sarcasm. .......................................................................... 16 2.1.3 Satire. ............................................................................................................ 19 2.2 Figurative Language Research ......................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Metaphor processing. ................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Verbal irony processing. ............................................................................... 22 2.2.3 Satire processing. .......................................................................................... 26 2.3 Variables Beyond Literal and Figurative Meaning ........................................ 27 2.4 Individual Differences and Figurative Language ............................................ 28 2.5 Cognitive Measures ............................................................................................ 28 2.5.1 Intelligence. ..................................................................................................