Hyperbole, abstract motion and spatial knowledge

Hyperbole, abstract motion and spatial knowledge: sequential versus simultaneous scanning Maria Catricalà & Annarita Guidi

Cognitive Processing International Quarterly of Cognitive Science ISSN 1612-4782 Volume 13 Supplement 1 Cogn Process (2012) 13:117-120 DOI 10.1007/s10339-012-0474-8

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag. This eoffprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.

1 23

Author's personal copy Cogn Process (2012) 13 (Suppl 1):S117–S120 DOI 10.1007/s10339-012-0474-8

SHORT REPORT

Hyperbole, abstract motion and spatial knowledge: sequential versus simultaneous scanning Maria Catricala` • Annarita Guidi

Published online: 22 July 2012  Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract Hyperbole is an interesting trope in the perspective of Space Grammar, since it is related to the displacing of a limit (Lausberg in Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. M.H. Verlag, Munchen 1967; see the Ancient Greek meaning ‘to throw over’ [ ‘exaggerate’). Hyperbole semantic mechanisms are related to virtual scanning (Holmqvist and Płuciennik in Imagery in language. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 777–785, 2004). Basic concepts of SIZE and QUANTITY, related image-schemas (IS) and conceptual metaphors (UP IS MORE; IMPORTANT IS BIG: Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987) are implied in hyperbole processing. The virtual scanning is the simulation of a perceptual domain (here, the vertically oriented space). The virtual limit is defined by expected values on the relevant scale. Since hyperbole is a form of intensification, its linguistic interest lies in cases involving the extremes of a scale, for which a limit can be determined (Schemann 1994). In this experimental study, we analyze the concept of ‘limit’ in terms of ‘abstract motion’ and ‘oriented space’ domains (Langacker 1990) with respect to hyperboles expressed by Italian Verbs of movement. The IS considered are PATH and SOURCEPATH-GOAL. The latter corresponds to a virtual scale whose limit is arrived at, or overcome, in hyperboles. Keywords Hyperbole
Abstract motion
Semanticspragmatics
Idiom
Metaphor
Image schema

Hyperbole in the oriented space Hyperbole is characterized by occurrence with non-literal co-texts (i.e., metaphors, idioms: Gibbs 1992, Nemesi 2004, Cano Mora 2009). As a semantic-pragmatic phenomenon, it is context- and knowledge-bound (Claridge 2011). Otherwise, it is based on lexical contrasts, as in entailment scales (e.g., \freezing, cold, cool[); this can also be the case of conventional hyperboles, since they can be understood with minimal or no immediate context. Conventionality is a factor of salience (Cruse 1986); it could be argued that hyperboles represent less (rather than more) salient meanings (many hyperbolic readings are subsenses of a polysemous word, e.g., dead). Further answers can come from corpora analysis. This study1 deals with hyperboles expressed by Italian Verbs of movement (VM, e.g., salire ‘to go up’). We take into account the co-occurrence of hyperbole with a formulaic expression and/or a conceptual metaphor. Four cases are possible (see Table 1): •

•

• Mara Catricala` wrote the first paragraph (Hyperbole oriented in the space) and Annarita Guidi the second and the third. M. Catricala` (&)
A. Guidi Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] A. Guidi e-mail: [email protected]

MF: metaphorical-formulaic hyperbole (e.g., salire a mille lit. ‘to go up to 1.000’, cadere dalla padella nella brace ‘to jump out from the frying pan into the fire’); MNF: metaphorical, non-formulaic hyperbole (e.g., salire al cielo lit. ‘to go up in the sky’, scendere nell’abisso lit. ‘to go down to the abyss’); NMF: non-metaphorical, formulaic hyperbole (e.g., crollare a picco lit. ‘to go straight down’, scendere in picchiata ‘to nose-dive’);

1

It is part of a research on hyperbolic strategies and their semanticpragmatic, configurational, colligational patterns. In Cognitive Grammar hyperboles are constructions (their meaning is not compositional).

123

Author's personal copy S118

Cogn Process (2012) 13 (Suppl 1):S117–S120

Table 1 Stimuli and alternatives of S meaning HYPERBOLE (STIMULI)

MF

MNF

IS (ANSWERS) GOAL (SPG)

GOAL-OVER (GO)

PATH (P)

I prezzi delle case salgono alle stelle

I prezzi raggiungono il loro livello massimo

I prezzi superano il loro livello massimo

I prezzi arrivano a un livello altissimo

‘houses prices skyrocket’

‘prices get their highest level’ Le grida raggiungono il livello massimo

‘prices get unprecedent levels’ Le grida sono le piu` alte mai sentite

‘prices get a very high level’

Le grida salgono al cielo ‘shouts go up to the sky’

‘shouts get unprecedent levels’

‘shouts get their highest level’ NMF

NMNF

•

Le grida arrivano molto in alto ‘shouts get a very high level’

Le temperature scendono in picchiata

Le temperature arrivano al loro livello minimo

Le temperature oltrepassano il loro livello minimo

Le temperature scendono moltissimo

‘temperatures nose-dive’

‘temperatures get their lowest level’

Il prezzo della benzina schizza in alto

Il prezzo della benzina arriva al suo livello massimo

‘temperatures get unprecedent low levels’ Il prezzo della benzina supera il suo livello massimo

‘temperatures get a very low level’ Il prezzo della benzina aumenta moltissimo

‘petrol price shoots up’

‘petrol price gets its highest level’

‘petrol price gets unprecedent levels’

‘petrol price gets a very high level’

NMNF: non-metaphorical, non-formulaic hyperbole (e.g., crollare ‘to collapse’, schizzare in alto ‘to shoot up’).

Metaphorical hyperbole implies gradability and a frame shift.2 Formulaic hyperboles are here defined as conventional, figurative, informal, proverbial multi-word expressions (Nunberg et al. 1994) and identified through frequency and salience (i.e., collocational frequency) corpus data. The relationship between hyperbole and abstract motion lies in its objective-gradational dimension (Cano Mora 2009), which upscales (or downscales) a quantity/magnitude. VM realize hyperboles expressing a motion on a scale, which can be conceptualized as a series of states. In Langacker’s terms (1990), a VM is a special case of perfective process. When the relation Mover/Location is not profiled into physical space, we enter the abstract motion domain (e.g., in the concert went from midnight to 3 a.m. Source domain is space, Target domain is time). In sequential scanning (e.g., the ball crossed the field), we sequentially access states: the speaker/hearer’s conceptualization foregrounds the momentary position of the object in relation to its position an instant before. In simultaneous scanning (e.g., the ball went across the field), we access a holistic representation: the whole path is conceptualized as an event where all states are present. Such opposition is based on the idea that ‘every conception involving

2

In NM hyperbole a sole domain serves as base for literal and hyperbolic expression. Such opposition allows dealing with spatial categories in hyperboles semantically realized by metaphors, while in Lausberg’s definition only ‘‘basic’’ hyperboles are based on space categories, and hyperbole ‘‘combined’’ with other tropes is mostly employed for non-spatial categories.

123

directionality at the experiential level implies some kind of seriality at the processing level’. Our hypothesis is that the syntactic-semantic pattern (VM ? Prepositional Phrase) could interact with spatial reasoning in hyperbole interpretation.3 Hyperboles based on a PATH schema (P) could be processed through a sequential scanning, while those based on a SOURCEPATH-GOAL schema (SPG) could be processed through a simultaneous scanning. Hyperbole is configured as a movement along a scale: a sequence of states, which can be sequentially or simultaneously accessed. The border between the two scanning modes could be traced on the formulaic nature of hyperbole. This equals to hypothesize that formulaic PP profile the scale limit, thus formulaic hyperboles tend to correlate with SPG (i.e., tend to be processed simultaneously); non-formulaic hyperboles tend to correlate with P, that is, they tend to be processed sequentially. For example, in salire alle stelle (lit. ‘to go up to the stars’, ‘to skyrocket’), PP alle stelle could be processed as the superior limit of a vertically oriented space (SPG). This formulaic expression could activate a representation in which the object arrives at, or overcomes, the expected limit on the relevant scale. On the other hand, schizzare in alto seems not to evoke a superior limit within the vertically oriented space (P); thus, it could be sequentially processed. The formulaic nature of hyperbole could evoke a telic implicature (i.e., reaching or overcoming a limit) in terms of abstract motion: a conceptualization in which the limit of the vertically oriented space is arrived at. Such implicature could be the result of a ‘default inference’ 3

VM ? PP could be considered as a ‘‘special syntactic construction for hyperbolic use’’ (Claridge 2011), which contributes some forms to be idiomatised or lexicalised.

Author's personal copy Cogn Process (2012) 13 (Suppl 1):S117–S120

generated through heuristics (‘idiomatic interpretation’: Levinson 2000).4

Results of the experiment The experiment aimed to verify the role of lexical and world knowledge in hyperboles comprehension. Psycholinguistics (paradigms of figurative language comprehension) provided the methodological tools of meta-cognition (Flavell 1976); computational linguistics provided the classification tools (parameters of salience). 48 adults, 24 males and 24 females (mean age = 31,8; SD = 2,24), Italian native speakers, participated voluntarily in a reading-comprehension test. They were asked to read a short sentence (S) and select the best approximation of S meaning from a set of 3 alternatives. Once selected the answer, a second S appeared on the screen. The 12 S were formed as follows. Patterns VM ? PP, for example, salire alle stelle, were retrieved from the web corpus ItWac (Baroni et al. 2009); then they were associated with their most frequent and salient Subject (e.g., prezzi is more frequently associated to salire alle stelle than Nouns such as market or fame). Multiple-choice answers mirror IS as in the following S examples. NMNF, where abstract motion is bounded into spatial categories, are mainly interpreted as P (schizzare in alto: 40 informants; crollare: 36), which is consistent with our hypothesis. NMNF profile the intensity/speed of the conceptualized movement. A similar explanation concerns NMF. Scendere in picchiata and crollare a picco are interpreted as P by, respectively, 44 and 38 informants. Lexical knowledge and conventionality are not related to a telic implicature—the salient meaning is not the reaching/ overcoming of a limit, but the noticeable extent of the movement toward such limit (sequential scanning). Turning to metaphorical hyperboles, it is interesting to note that MNF are related to a non-decidability. Differences in the answers are not significant (salire al cielo: P: 25, SPG: 19, GO: 4; scendere nell’abisso: P: 23, SPG: 14, GO: 11). It seems that non-conventional, polysemous expressions complicate the selection of the salient meaning. MF (salire alle stelle, salire a mille) are interpreted as P, thus do not correlate with a simultaneous scanning. Further evidence is the proverbial cadere dalla padella nella brace, 4

The hypothesis can be confronted with: the broadly discussed cases in which an expression stands for very by means of the feature ‘completion, final degree’ (e.g., dead, break one’s neck, break the sound barrier, the sky is the limit); the idea that: instances where the membership in a semantic or pragmatic scale is clear and fixed are highly conventional (Claridge 2011); exaggeration is an important feature of metaphorical fixed expressions (Moon 1998).

S119

judged as a P by 37 informants. Even where a limit is established through a conventional frame shift, MF are not processed with a telic implicature. This appears consistent with the idea that virtual scanning would be impossible if an infinity schema did not exist (Holmqvist and Płuciennik 2004). In hyperboles, P could correspond to such infinity schema, where a small scope is focused on, its boundaries are excluded from perceptual access and what remains inside the scope appears infinite and endless. The exception is represented by the proverbial A X schizzano gli occhi dalle orbite (‘X’s eyes pop out of his head’) interpreted as SPG (the answer ‘X gets his highest level of surprise’ is selected by 32 informants). A role seems to be played by the metaphorical mapping Source (orbite ‘eye sockets’, occhi ‘eyes’)—Target (‘limit’, ‘surprise’). Embodiment emerges as a discriminating factor. Orbita ‘eye socket’ is an embodied limit; such hyperbole profiles it and is interpreted with a telic implicature (‘eyes going out of the head’/surprise reaching the highest level’). It is not the same for spatial limits (e.g., ‘abyss’, sky’, ‘stars’); such hyperboles profile the extent of the movement. Possible explanations of P interpretations concern world knowledge (a limit can not be established, or it can always be overcome) and grammatical knowledge (the presence of the preposition da ‘from’ differentiates SPG hyperbole from all other stimuli, which include prepositions a ‘to’, in, or a combination out from–into), an aspect that could be further analyzed.

Neuro-linguistic applications The overlapping hyperbole/metaphor/idiom mainly correlate with P. VM ? PP pattern is interpreted foregrounding the extent of the increase/decrease (extent of movement along a scale), not the arrival point (superior/inferior limit). An exception is represented by embodied limits (hyperboles containing body-part lexical items), interpreted as SPG. In conceptual semantics, a phenomenological linguistic difference should be neurologically explained. Our preliminary results can outline an experimental design aimed to analyze the relationship between pre-linguistic (IS) and symbolic (hyperboles) structures. Concerning the mental scanning of topographic representation built from textual information (Mellet et al. 2002), some interesting issues are •

the difference MF/MNF. In order to further verify nondecidability (sequential vs. simultaneous scanning) in the interpretation of hyperboles such as salire al cielo, the role of frequency, salience versus polysemy could be analyzed. ERP can determine difficulties in processing time (ambiguity resolution; inferences).

123

Author's personal copy S120

•

A cognitive advantage of idioms (Goldberg 2012) can be hypothesized, as well as longer reading time for MNF, which would correspond to a difficulty in establishing the salient meaning (P vs. SPG). fMRI can support results by determining whether areas related to inference processes, access to world knowledge, increasing semantic difficulty (Sharp et al. 2010, Bambini et al. 2011, Rapp et al. 2011) are activated while responding to MNF; the difference embodied/spatial limit in MF (e.g., break one’s neck vs. to skyrocket). fMRI can show different activations (i.e., meaning-specific processes: Ferstl et al. 2005), possibly correlated to different levels of knowledge and further clarify the features of situated simulations activated by words and through spatial imagery (Simmons et al. 2008, Struiksma et al. 2009).

Conflict of interest This supplement was not sponsored by outside commercial interests. It was funded entirely by ECONA, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy

References Bambini V et al (2011) Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res Bull 86(3/4):203–216 Baroni M et al (2009) The WaCky wide web. J Lang Resour Eval 43(3):209–226 Cano Mora L (2009) All or nothing: a semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingu¨´ıstica y Lenguas Aplicadas 4:25–35 Claridge C (2011) Hyperbole in English. Cambridge University Press, New York Cruse DA (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ferstl EC et al (2005) Emotional and temporal aspects of situation model processing during text comprehension. J Cognit Neurosci 17(5):724–739

123

Cogn Process (2012) 13 (Suppl 1):S117–S120 Flavell J (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick L (ed) The nature of intelligence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 231–236 Gibbs RW (1992) What do idioms really mean? J Mem Lang 31:485–506 Goldberg A (2012) Argument structure constructions: items and generalization. Conference held at Roma Tre University, 3 April 2012 Holmqvist K, Płuciennik J (2004) Virtual scanning in hyperbolas. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B, Kwiatkowska A (eds) Imagery in language. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 777–785 Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, London Langacker RW (1990) Concept, image, and symbol. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin Lausberg H (1967) Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. M.H. Verlag, Munchen Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge Mellet E et al (2002) Neural basis of mental scanning of a topographic representation built from a text. Cereb Cortex 12(12):1322–1330 Moon R (1998) Fixed expressions and idioms in English. Calendon Press, Oxford Nemesi AL (2004) What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51(3/4):351–378 Nunberg G et al (1994) Idioms. Language 70:491–538 Rapp AM et al (2011) Neural correlates of metonymy resolution. Brain Lang 119(3):196–205 Schemann H (1994) Hyperbel und Grenzwert. In: Sabban A, Schmitt C (eds) Sprachlicher Alltag. Niemeyer, Tubingen, pp 499–502 Sharp DJ et al (2010) The neural response to changing semantic and perceptual complexity during language processing. Hum Brain Mapp 31(3):365–377 Simmons WK et al (2008) fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. J Physiol Paris 102(1/3):106–119 Struiksma ME et al (2009) What is the link between language and spatial images? Acta Psychol 132(2):145–156