Abstract
A sample of 204 poetic metaphors was rated along 10 scales by 300 participants (30 different people for each of the scales). The scales were identical to ones previously used in a study involving ratings of artificially constructed metaphors, and were chosen on the basis of their relevance to current models of metaphor processing. Three major findings emerged. First, the overall pattern of findings was identical to the one obtained earlier using constructed metaphors, and aspects of it provided support for each major metaphor model without completely onfirming any one of them. Models that attribute an important role to perceptual like processes provided the most successful fit to the data. Second, all of the 10 scales were positively intercorrelated, although the correlations were generally moderate enough to permit independent experimental manipulations of the variables defined by the different scales. These results, too, are similar to those obtained earlier with constructed metaphors. Third, we identify and discuss some suggestive differences between the results of the two studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusions in immediate memory.British Journal of Psychology, 55, 75–84.
Dawson, M. (1982).Multidimensional responses to metaphor. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Ontario.
Gentner, D. (1980).The structure of analogical models in science. Unpublished manuscript.
Johnson, M., & Malgady, R. (1979). Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 253–265.
Johnson, M. E., & Malgady, R. (1980). Toward a perceptual theory of metaphoric comprehension. In R. Honeck & R. Hoffman (Eds.),Cognition and figurative language. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Katz, A. N. (1982). Metaphoric relationships: The role of feature saliency.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 283–296.
Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. (1983).On memory for metaphor. Memory and Cognition (in press).
Marschark, M., Katz, A. N., & Paivio, A. (1983). Dimensions of metaphor.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 17–40.
McCabe, A. (1983). Conceptual similarity and quality of metaphor in isolated sentences versus extended contexts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 41–68.
Paivio, A. (1979). Psychological processes in the comprehension of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichman, P., & Coste, E. (1980). Mental imagery and the comprehension of figurative language: Is there a relationship? In R. Honeck & R. Hoffman (Eds.),Cognition and figurative language. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor.Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27–55.
Verbrugge, R., & McCarrell, N. (1977). Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling.Cognitive Psychology, 9, 493–533.
Ziff, P. (1964). On understanding “understanding utterances”. In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.),The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katz, A.N., Paivio, A. & Marschark, M. Poetic comparisons: Psychological dimensions of metaphoric processing. J Psycholinguist Res 14, 365–383 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067881
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067881