Abstract
Looking at metaphor comprehension from the perspective of distributed models of conceptual representation, this article describes the process of suppression through which metaphorically irrelevant features of metaphor’s vehicle are suppressed. Distributed models of conceptual representation hold that meaning of every concept is represented by a set of feature nodes in a connectionist network, and the coactivation of these nodes leads to the understanding of that concept. Based on these models, it is suggested that degree of distinctiveness of features play an important role in the suppression of metaphorically irrelevant features during metaphor comprehension. When the metaphor X is a Y is processed, a salient feature of Y creates a metaphorical class to which both topic (X) and vehicle (Y) belong. The rest of features, which are metaphorically irrelevant, are suppressed. Those irrelevant features which have a high degree of correlational strength are suppressed collectively. Finally, the key role of metaphor’s topic in the suppression of metaphorically irrelevant features is discussed. It is suggested that the set of suppressed features is dependent on the topic. If the defining feature of the metaphorical class of the vehicle (Y) matches the topic (X), the rest of features will be suppressed. In this situation, both topic and vehicle of the metaphor are included in a common metaphorical class. If the defining feature of metaphorical class of the vehicle (Y) does not match the topic (X), X is understood in its literal sense, and the sentence X is a Y will not have a logical metaphorical interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Askari, A. (2017). Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1409323. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1409323.
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 161–189.
Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658.
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163–201.
Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: a computational account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 77–94.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156.
Gernsbacher, M, A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1995). Reading skill and suppression revisited. Psychological Science, 6, 165–169.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1619–1630.
Gernsbacher, M, A., Shroyer, S. (1989). The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and Cognition, 17, 536–540.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: salience, context and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001.
Giora, R. (2006). Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.006.
Giora, R. (2007). “A good Arab is not a dead Arab—A racist incitement”: on the accessibility of negated concepts. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 129–162). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I. (2005a). Negation as positivity in disguise. In H. L. Colston & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: social and cultural influences (pp. 233–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H. (2005b). Negation as mitigation: the case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768510.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 277–293.
Keil, F. (1986). The acquisition of natural kinds and artifact terms. In Demoupoulous, W., Marras, A., eds. Language Learning and Concept Acquisition: Foundational Issues. Ablex; Norwood, NJ, 133–53.
Keysar, B. (1994). Discourse context effects: metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18, 247–269.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360.
Masson, M. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In Forde, EME., Humphreys, G. Category-specificity in mind and brain. Psychology Press, East Sussex, 211–50.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 37, 547–559.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087323.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130.
Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Delvin, J. (2002). The emergence of category specific defecits in a distributed semantic system. In E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 115–148). Sussex: Psychology Press.
Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2007). Conceptual structure. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 217–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F. H., & Poli, J. (1996). The time-course of metaphor comprehension: an event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0107.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J., & Tyler, L. K. (2011). Conceptual structure: towards an integrated neurocognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368–1401.
Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., Levy, J. P., Voice, J. K., & Moss, H. E. (1996). Distinctiveness and correlations in the structure of categories: behavioral data and a connectionist model. Brain and Language, 55, 89–91.
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.
Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: a distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75, 195–231.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: the featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology.
Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86, 347–365.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Khoshsima, H. & Yarahmadzehi, N. Suppression from the Perspective of Distributed Models of Conceptual Representation. Act Nerv Super 60, 90–94 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-018-0025-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-018-0025-4