marginally significantp = .078
Furthermore, the difference between novel metaphoric and anomalous word dyads was marginally significant over midline electrodes ( p = .078).
Furthermore, the difference between novel metaphoric and anomalous word dyads was marginally significant over midline electrodes ( p = .078).
Such a linear effect across the utterance types is in line with previous monolingual research on metaphor comprehension, and indicates an increasing trend of resource intensity of mappings between concepts from literal, to conventional metaphoric, novel metaphoric, and anomalous utterances [ 18 , 29 ].