Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:41:42.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Linking the Figurative to the Creative: Bilinguals’ Comprehension of Metaphors, Jokes, and Remote Associates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Jyotsna Vaid ,
Belem G. López  and
Francisco E. Martínez
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Jyotsna Vaid
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Belem G. López
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Francisco E. Martínez
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The research reported here examined how Spanish-English bilinguals interpret novel metaphors, detect humor, and uncover links between distantly related words. Study 1 found that judgments of the literal truth of statements were slowed by literally false metaphoric statements in bilinguals and monolinguals alike. Study 2 found that when deciding whether sentences were jokes or not jokes, bilinguals tended to be more accurate than monolinguals. Study 3 found that bilinguals’ success in arriving at solutions to remote associate problems was affected by their prior experience in informal translation (language brokering) and by their Spanish proficiency: Although no group differences were found in English, language brokers performed better than non-brokers on Spanish remote associates. It is suggested that the study of creative language use can inform the study of bilingual figurative language processing and that future research more systematically probe individual differences among bilinguals in creative language processing.

Keywords: bilingualism, language brokering, creativity, joke detection, metaphoric processing

Inquiry into how bilingual speakers perceive, acquire, produce, and interpret figurative language (metaphors, idioms, proverbs, jokes, etc.) opens up potentially new ways of conceptualizing both the varieties of language use and of language users. In particular, the study of figurative language processing brings into the foreground social, affective, and aesthetic dimensions of language use and offers new ways of examining – and complicating – the process of sense-making in which all individuals engage, whether they are single or multiple language users.

Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Figurative Language Processing , pp. 53 - 86
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cardillo, E., Schmidt, G., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Stimulus design is an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 651–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analyzing verbal play. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1986). Bilinguals have more fun. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 22, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, T., Smith, S., & Vaid, J. (Eds.). (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiello, D., Jarosz, A.F., Cushen, P.J., & Wiley, J. (2012). Firing the executive: When an analytic approach to problem solving helps and hurts. The Journal of Problem Solving, 4, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Gianico, J.L. (2003). Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theoretical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology, 50, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1009–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2004). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In Bhatia, T.K. & Ritchie, W.C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 577–601). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bountrogianni, M. (1988). Bilingualism and metaphor comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H. (2002). What native and non-native speakers’ images for idioms tell us about figurative language. In Heredia, R.R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 275–295). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, E.M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 634–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieślicka, A.B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, T.C. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummins, J., & Mulcahy, R. (1978). Orientation to language in Ukrainian-English bilingual children. Child Development, 49, 1239–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushen, P.J., & Wiley, J. (2011). Aha! Voila! Eureka! Bilingualism and insightful problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In Alatis, J.E. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 489–500). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Donner, L.M., Orellana, M.F., & Jiménez, R. (2008). It’s one of those things that you do to help the family: Language brokering and the development of immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 515–543.Google Scholar
Donner, L.M., Orellana, M.F., & Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). I helped my mom and it helped me. Translating skills of language brokers into improved standardized test scores. American Journal of Education, 113, 451–478.Google Scholar
Esquivel, A. (2012). Language brokering is a dynamic phenomenon: A qualitative study examining the experiences of Latina/o language brokers [Unpublished senior thesis], Scripps College.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H.B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R.J., Tebbe, M.R., Leka, G.E., Garcia, R.C., & Erramouspe, R. (1999). Monolingual and bilingual memory for English and Spanish metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R.R., & Kemper, S. (1987). What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor comprehension?Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 149–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B., Colzato, L., Fischer, R., & Christoffels, I. (2011). Bilingualism and creativity: Benefits in convergent thinking come with losses in divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hull, R., Chen, H.C., Vaid, J., & Martínez, F. (2005). Great expectations: Humor comprehension across hemispheres. Brain and Cognition, 57, 281–282.Google Scholar
Ianco-Worrall, A.D. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43, 1390–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. (1996). Metaphor interpretations by second language learners: Children and adults. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 53, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A.N., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R.W., & Turner, M. (Eds.). (1998). Figurative language and thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kazmerski, V., Blasko, D., & Dessalegn, B. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31, 673–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kharkhurin, A. (2012). Multilingualism and creativity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W.E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In Hornby, P.A. (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational implications (pp. 15–27). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In Pütz, M. & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. (pp. 293–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, B., Vaid, J., & Chen, H.C. (2012, May). Correlates of language brokering experience among Spanish-English speakers in Texas. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological Science, Chicago.Google Scholar
López, B., & Vaid, J. (2012, October). Literal and figurative language processing: Differences among bilinguals varying in language brokering experience. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Texas Regional Cognition Conference (ARMADILLO), Texas A&M International Unversity, Laredo.Google Scholar
Martínez, F. (2003). Exploring figurative language processing in bilinguals: The metaphor interference effect (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas A&M University, Texas.Google Scholar
Martínez, F., Chen, H.C., Vaid, J., Wilkinson, L., & Price, E. (2004, Oct.). Joke comprehension and detection: Is there a bilingual advantage? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Texas Regional Cognition Conference (ARMADILLO), University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Martínez, C.R., McClure, H.H., & Eddy, J.M. (2009). Language brokering contexts and behavioral and emotional adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, F., Vaid, J., & Heredia, R.R. (2003, November). Metaphoric meaning activation: Is there an effect of language status? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., & Heredia, R.R. (2002). Lexical access of phrasal verbs and verb-prepositions by monolinguals and bilinguals. In Heredia, R.R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mednick, S.A., & Mednick, M.P. (1967). Examiner’s manual: Remote associates test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Mercado, V. (2003). Effects of language brokering among children of Latino immigrants (Unpublished dissertation). Pace University, New York.Google Scholar
Morales, A., & Hanson, W.E. (2005). Language brokering: An integrative review of the literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 471–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E.M.M. (1992). Memory for metaphor by nonfluent bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2000). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peal, E., & Lambert, W.E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, R., Maclaren, R., & Chiappe, D. (2010). The role of working memory in the metaphor interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 400–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricciardelli, L.A. (1992). Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, J.R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 15, 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titzmann, P.F. (2012). Growing up too soon? Parentification among immigrant and native adolescents in Germany. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 880–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umaña-Taylor, A. (2003). Language brokering as a stressor for immigrant children and their families. In Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. (Eds.), Points and counterpoints: Controversial relationship and family issues in the 21st century (pp.157–159). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Vaid, J. (1984). Visual, phonetic and semantic processing in early and late bilinguals. In Paradis, M. & Lebrun, Y. (Eds.), Early bilingualism and child development (pp. 175–191). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Vaid, J. (2000). New approaches to conceptual representations in bilingual memory: The case for studying humor interpretation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaid, J. (2006). Joking across languages: Perspectives on humor, emotion, and bilingualism. In Pavlenko, A. (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp.152–182). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., Hull, R., Heredia, R.R., Gerkens, D., & Martínez, F. (2003). Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1431–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaid, J., Chen, H.C., Rao, C., & Manzano, I. (2006, May). Joke detection: Is there a bilingual and/or brokering advantage? Poster presented at the Conference on Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, Toronto.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., & Martínez, F. (2001, April). Figurative language and thought across languages: What transfers? Poster presented at the Third International Symposium on Bilingualism, University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar
Vaid, J. (2008). Language Brokering Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., Milliken, K., López, B., & Rao, C. (2011, July). Language brokering experience affects phrase interpretation and sound segmentation: Evidence from Spanish-English bilinguals. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.Google Scholar
Valdes, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisskirch, R.S. (2005). The relationship of language brokering to ethnic identity for Latino early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 529–541.Google ScholarPubMed
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35, 1456–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, A. (2003). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×