Main Content

B2 - Polysemy and metaphors as a challenge for mental representations

PI: Prof. Dr. C. Spieß & Prof. Dr. C. Kauschke
Ph.D. student: Carolin Brandt

Research context

Figurative speech, which includes various forms of irony as well as the use of metonymy and metaphors, presents challenges for language users. This is partly due to the fact that figurative speech is characterized by semantic vagueness on the one hand. On the other hand, it relies on the cognitive ability to connect different conceptual domains. In order to recognize and understand metaphorical phenomena, certain cognitive abilities must be developed (such as the perception of analogies, i.e., perceiving similarities between two objects, using or accepting alternative terms for a reference object), and situational-contextual factors must also be considered (Spieß 2016). Another challenge is that any linguistic phenomenon can, in principle, be used metaphorically. It is only the context that reveals whether an expression is used metaphorically or not. The acquisition of metaphorical competence thus appears to be an exceptionally complex undertaking (cf. Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). Contrary to earlier studies on the acquisition of metaphorical production and comprehension (cf. Winner 1988, Augst 1978, among others), more recent research assumes that comprehension and use of metaphors is a process that begins early (at the age of 3-4 years according to Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020, Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). It has been shown that understanding (and using) metaphorical language phenomena does not pose a problem if the children’s world knowledge and linguistic competence is taken into account (Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020). Indefrey/Voigt 2017 distinguish 'pseudo-metaphorical' language use in early childhood from later metaphorical language use. Regardless of whether one refers to metaphorical or pseudo-metaphorical competence, children's world and experiential knowledge, along with the situational context of the conversation, significantly influence metaphorical language and should therefore be carefully considered in the research design. Furthermore, studies have found that children who demonstrated competence in forming analogies and using alternative terms were also better at understanding metaphors (cf. Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020). While there are a few studies in the English-speaking world on the relationship between analogy perception, alternative designations, and metaphor comprehension (Pouscoulous 2014, Di Paola/Domaneschi/Pouscoulous 2020, Pouscoulous/Tomasello 2020), there are hardly any recent studies in the German-speaking world, with few exceptions (cf. Indefrey/Voigt 2017). Based on German conversation and corpus data and/or experimental data (e.g., voting behavior games, assignment tasks).

Current dissertation project

Working Title: The Use of Figurative Expressions in Monolingual Typically Developing German-Speaking Children

Aims

Previous research has primarily focused on children's comprehension of figurative language, while the production of figurative expressions has received considerably less attention. This project aims to provide new insights into how monolingual typically developing German-speaking children use figurative language. It addresses existing research gaps from the perspectives of language acquisition, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics.

The project focuses on metaphors, metonymies, and opaque figurative expressions. These phenomena share the characteristic that their intended meanings must be inferred from the communicative context. The study investigates which figurative expressions children produce, which conceptual domains they draw upon, and which communicative functions such expressions fulfil.

Methods

The project adopts a corpus-based mixed-methods approach. The quantitative identification and annotation of figurative expressions in children's language is based on the Usage-Based Approach to Metaphor Identification in Child Speech (UBAMICS; Gaskins et al., 2024) and the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU; Steen et al., 2010). These procedures have been extended to enable the systematic identification of metonymies and opaque figurative expressions. This framework allows for the analysis of different types of figurative language, their linguistic realization, and the conceptual domains on which they are based.

The identified figurative expressions are subsequently examined qualitatively, with particular attention to their communicative functions. The qualitative analysis follows a pragmatically oriented approach in which inductively developed functional categories are refined and validated against the corpus data.

The project investigates both spoken and written language across different stages of development. The spoken data comprise peer interactions among preschool children aged four to seven, collected within the discussion-group project Stolpersteine und Wunschsterne (Bose & Kurtenbach, 2019). The written data consist of narrative texts produced by children aged seven to eleven from the NarrationsLernerKorpus (NaLeKo; Hirschmann, Binanzer & Langlotz, 2023).

Preliminary work

The project builds on previous research on metaphor in pragmalinguistics (Spieß, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2024) as well as on work in clinical linguistics investigating metaphor production in clinical populations compared with typically developing control groups (Müller et al., 2025).

Relation to other Projects

Methodologically, the project is closely related to Projects C2 and C3 through its corpus-based investigation of semantic and frequency-related aspects of language change. It also shares thematic links with projects B3(1) and B3(2), particularly regarding the acquisition and development of mental representations. Furthermore, the project is closely connected to Cohort I Project C4, which employs a corpus-based approach to investigate the metaphorization potential of positional verbs in children's language.

References

Augst, G. (1978). Spracherwerb von sechs bis sechzehn. Linguistische, psychologische, soziologische Grundlagen, Düsseldorf: Schwann Verlag.

Bose, I., & Kurtenbach, S. (2019). “Stolpersteine und Wunschsterne“. Förderung von Partizipation und Gesprächsfähigkeit in der Kita. Bose, I., Hannken-Illjes, K., Kurtenbach, S. (Hrsg.), Kinder im Gespräch – mit Kindern im Gespräch. Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH. 113–147.

Di Paola, S., Domaneschi, F., & Pouscoulous, N. (2020). Metaphorical developing minds: The role of multiple factors in the development of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.08.008

Gaskins, D., Falcone, M., & Rundblad, G. (2024). A usage-based approach to metaphor identification and analysis in child speech. Language and Cognition, 16(1), 32–56.

Hirschmann, H., Binanzer, A., & Langlotz, M. (2023). NaLeKo: Ein komplex annotiertes Lernerkorpus mit schriftlichen Erzähltexten des Deutschen als Erst- und Zweitsprache. Korpora Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 3(2), 230–238.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980): Metaphors we live by. UCP.

Mueller, N., Mülfarth, R., Seuffert, S., Dannlowski, U., Kircher, T., Kauschke, C., Nagels, A., & Stein, F. (2025). Figurative language production in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Psychiatry research, 354, 116772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116772

Pouscoulous, N. (2014). „The elevator’s buttocks“: Metaphorical abilities in children. In: Matthews, D. (ed.): Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. John Benjamins, 239–259.

Pouscoulous, N., & Tomasello, M. (2020): Early birds: Metaphor understanding in 3-year-olds. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.021

Spieß, C. (2014). Diskurslinguistische Metaphernanalyse. In: Junge, M. (Hrsg.). Methoden der Me­taphernforschung und -analyse. Springer, 31–58.

Spieß, C. (2015). Metonymie und Metapher: Sprachdidaktische Perspektiven auf das sprachreflexive Potenzial zweier Phänomene. Spieß, C., Köpcke, K.-M. (Hrsg.): Metapher und Metonymie: Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge. De Gruyter, 323–354.

Spieß, C. (2016). Metapher als multimodales kognitives Funktionsprinzip. Klug, N.-M., & Stöckl, H. (Hrsg.): Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. De Gruyter, 75–98.

Spieß, C. (2024): Metapherntheoretische Überlegungen – Eine linguistische Perspektive. A/Symmetrie — Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, 12–37.

Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins. 

Voigt, S., & Indefrey, P. (2017). Metaphernerwerb: eine empirische Studie bei Kindern im Alter von sechs bis vierzehn Jahren. metaphorik.de, 27, 71–106

Winner, Ellen (1988): The Points of words. Children’s understanding of metaphor and irony. HUP.