Аңдатпа
This study investigates the mental representation and processing of the two types of metaphorical senses in Russian polysemous verbs and adjectives using eye-tracking, sensicality judgment, and semantic clustering tasks. The metaphorical senses under study differ in their semantic proximity to the literal sense, with “proximal” metaphors (e.g. “raise prices”) retaining more semantic components, and “distal” metaphors being semantically bleached (e.g. “raise alarm”). Metaphors differed in their mental representations and processing patterns based on semantic proximity and part of speech. In semantic clustering, proximal metaphors were miscategorized with literal senses more often than distal metaphors. Proximal metaphors in adjectives were more often miscategorized with literal senses, while in verbs they were miscategorized with distal metaphors. In sensicality judgment, verbs showed longer reaction times for proximal metaphors, while adjectives demonstrated higher accuracy for distal metaphors compared to literal senses. In eye-tracking, adjectival distal metaphors triggered more regressions on disambiguating nouns than literal senses. Our findings suggest that distal metaphors are stored and processed as distinct, non-compositional units, while proximal metaphors overlap with literal senses and are processed compositionally. Proximal metaphors in adjectives are closer to literal senses, while in verbs they are closer to distal metaphors, explained by different semantic derivation mechanisms.