This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: e authors
propos e to us e a “m ore s ens entive, online” m eas ure of m etaphor ac tivation, whic h s ugges ts that
previous m eas ures (e.g. global reading tim e) were ins uffic iently s ens itive, or did not ac tually m eas ure the
online proc es s of idiom c om prehens ion. I’m c onvinc ed by this res pons e bec aus e language
c om prehens ion involves a playful bric olage of s em iotic res ourc es , all c ons piring to m ake m eaning during
online c om prehens ion -- and thus , any s tudy of that proc es s will need to be extrem ely s ens itive and
direc tly targeted to online proc es s es .
Q3: Do the authors find e v ide nce to support the ir hypothe sis? In one se nte nce , de scribe at le ast
one finding from this pape r (i.e . one e mpirical re sult). In a se cond se nte nce , e xplain why this
finding supports or unde rmine s the authors' hypothe sis. In a third se nte nce , e xplain why or why
not you are conv ince d by this e v ide nce . For instance , can you think of any alte rnativ e
e xplanations for the data?
The authors report that after reading an idiom that was m otivated by a partic ular c onc eptual m etaphor,
partic ipants were fas ter to rec ogniz e lexic al targets that were related to that c onc eptual m et...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/09/2014 for the course COGS 101c taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at UCSD.
- Spring '08