Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 165–178 | Cite as

The Relationship Between the Content and the Form of Metaphorical Statements

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Recent research suggests that the quality of a metaphorical topic-vehicle pairing should be the determinant to the choice of a proper grammatical form, nominal metaphor versus simile. Two studies examined the relationship between the quality of the content of a metaphorical statement and its grammatical form. Study 1 showed that the two grammatical forms did not differ in aptness when the quality of topic-vehicle pairs and the conventionality of vehicles, a factor associated with the quality of metaphorical expressions, were controlled. With an online comprehension measure, Study 2 found that high quality metaphorical pairings were easier to process than low quality metaphorical pairings in both the metaphor form and the simile form. For high quality metaphorical pairings, information related to both the topics and the vehicles was highly activated at an early stage of processing. The relations among factors involved in the interpretive process of metaphorical language are discussed.

Keywords

Quality of metaphorical pairing Similarity Grammatical form Online interpretation Sentence processing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aisenman R. A. (1999) Structure mapping and the simile – metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol 14: 45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota D. A., Yap M. J., Cortese M. J., Hutchison K. A., Kessler B., Loftis B., Neely J. H., Nelson D. L., Simpson G. B., Treiman R. (2007) The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39: 445–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blasko D. G., Connine C. M. (1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19: 295–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowdle B. F., Gentner D. (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1): 193–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiappe D.L., Kennedy J.M. (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 371–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiappe D. L., Kennedy J. M., Smykowski T. (2003) Reversibility, aptness, the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol 18: 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gentner D., Bowdle B. F. (2005) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 223–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gentner D., Wolff P. (1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 331–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibb H., Wales R. (1990) Metaphor or simile: Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form. Metaphor and Symbol 5: 199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glucksberg S., Haught C. (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language 21: 360–378Google Scholar
  11. Glucksberg S., Keysar B. (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97: 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2001). Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. Abstract of the Psychonomic Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Vol. 6. Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society Publications, pp. 103.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson M. G., Malgady R. G. (1979) Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8: 249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones L. L., Estes Z. (2005) Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 110–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones L. L., Estes Z. (2006) Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landauer T. K., Foltz P. W., Laham D. (1998) An introduction of latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processing 25: 259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marschark M., Katz A. N., Paivio A. (1983) Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12: 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricoeur P. (1977) Rule of metaphor. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  19. Tourangeau R., Rips L. (1991) Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 452–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tourangeau R., Sternberg R. J. (1981) Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology 13: 27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Utsumi A. (2007) Interpretive diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol 22: 291–312Google Scholar
  22. Wolff P., Gentner D. (2000) Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 26: 529–541PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Behavioral Sciences and EducationPennsylvania State UniversityHarrisburg, MiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations