Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 23–38 | Cite as

Components of metaphoric processing

  • Gregory Schraw
Article

Abstract

Three experiments examined whether sentences interpretable as metaphorical and literal expressions differed on three components of processing: perceptual decoding, sense selection, and integration of terms. In Experiments 1 and 2 metaphorical words were identified more readily than literal words on separate tests of perceptual identification and word recognition. In Experiment 3 the conveyed meaning of a metaphor was not recalled better than a literal interpretation of the same target sentence. It is concluded that metaphorical and literal sentences utilize separate perceptual and selectional decoding strategies, but do not differ with respect to comprehension processes once metaphorical and literal referents are instantiated. Discussion is given as to whether these differences constitute a separate metaphor strategy.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Word Recognition Separate Test Target Sentence Comprehension Process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burbules, N. C., Schraw, G., & Trathen, W. (1989). Metaphor, idiom and figuration.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4, 93–110.Google Scholar
  2. Fcustel, T. C., Shiffrin, R. M., & Salasoo, A. (1983). Episodic and lexical contributions to the repetition effect in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 309–346.Google Scholar
  3. Gerrig, R. J., & Healy, A. F. (1983). Dual process in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 667–675.Google Scholar
  4. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. I. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D. & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading.Memory & Cognition, 12, 558–567.Google Scholar
  6. Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 485–508.Google Scholar
  7. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 3, 306–340.Google Scholar
  8. Kucera, and Francis (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity.Psychological Review, 86, 161–180.Google Scholar
  10. Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context and comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477.Google Scholar
  11. Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. E. (1985). Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity.Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594.Google Scholar
  12. Reynolds, R. E., & Schwartz R. M. (1983). Relation of metaphoric processing to comprehension and memory.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 450–459.Google Scholar
  13. Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501–518.Google Scholar
  14. Shinjo, M., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of context in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 226–241.Google Scholar
  15. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor.Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27–55.Google Scholar
  16. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.Google Scholar
  17. Verbrugge, R. R., & McCarrell, N. S. (1977). Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling.Cognitive Psychology, 9, 494–533.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory Schraw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincoln

Personalised recommendations