Abstract
Previous theorists have suggested that figurative language may be an especially salient means by which speakers and addressees establish and recognize specific feelings of interpersonal closeness. To explore readers’ sensitivity to this interpersonal function of figurative language use, brief stories were created that described interactions between two ambiguously related characters. In the course of these conversational narratives, one character always used either a metaphoric or literal referring expression to refer to some antecedent information from the story. Across three experiments, readers consistently judged these story characters as knowing each other better when their interactions contained metaphoric references. Moreover, this occurred even when addressees failed to give explicit evidence of having understood the critical expressions. To the extent that language use highlights assumptions about commonalities, readers may generate inferences about social relationships alongside more meaning-driven comprehension processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bell, R. A., &Healey, J. G. (1992). Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures.Human Communication Research,18, 307–335.
Berry, D. S., Pennebaker, J. W., Mueller, J. S., &Hiller, W. S. (1997). Linguistic bases of social perception.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,23, 526–537.
Budiu, R., &Anderson, J. R. (2002). Comprehending metaphoric anaphors.Memory & Cognition,30, 158–165.
Clark, H. H. (1996).Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., &Gerrig, R. J. (1983). Understanding old words with new meanings.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 591–608.
Cohen, T. (1979). Metaphor and the cultivation of intimacy. In S. Sacks (Ed.),On metaphor (pp. 1–10). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Colston, H. L., &Katz, A. N. (Eds.) (2005).Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fitzsimmons, G. M., &Kay, A. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 547–557.
Fussell, S. R., &Krauss, R. M. (1989). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension.European Journal of Social Psychology,19, 509–525.
Gerrig, R. J., &Gibbs, R. W. (1988). Beyond the lexicon: Creativity in language production.Metaphor & Symbolic Activity,3, 1–19.
Gerrig, R. J., &Horton, W. S. (2005). Contextual expressions and common ground. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.),Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 43–70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 56–66.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994).The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends.Metaphor & Symbol,15, 5–27.
Gibbs, R. W., &Colston, H. L. (2002). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.),Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 181–194). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Gibbs, R. W., &Gerrig, R. J. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special”.Metaphor & Symbolic Activity,4, 154–158.
Grahe, J. E., &Bernieri, F. J. (1999). The importance of nonverbal cues in judging rapport.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,23, 253–269.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2002).Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jorgensen, J. (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech.Journal of Pragmatics,26, 613–634.
Kreuz, R. J. (1996). The use of verbal irony: Cues and constraints. In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.),Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kreuz, R. J., &Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 374–386.
Kreuz, R. J., Kassler, M. A., Coppenrath, L., &Allen, B. M. (1999). Tag questions and common ground effects in the perception of verbal irony.Journal of Pragmatics,31, 1685–1700.
Kreuz, R. J., &Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony.Journal of Language & Social Psychology,21, 127–143.
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking.Journal of Pragmatics,35, 1333–1359.
Onishi, K. A., &Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions.Memory & Cognition,21, 763–772.
Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45–53.
Pexman, P. M., &Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends?Metaphor & Symbol,19, 143–163.
Pollatsek, A., &Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 785–794.
Roberts, R. M., &Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language?Psychological Science,5, 159–163.
Seckman, M. A., &Couch, C. J. (1989). Jocularity, sarcasm, and relationships: An empirical study.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,18, 327–344.
Slugoski, B. R., &Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations.Journal of Language & Social Psychology,7, 101–121.
Sperber, D., &Wilson, D. (1995).Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was carried out with the support of a postdoctoral fellowship from the School of Psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology under Grant T32 AG00175 from the National Institute on Aging.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horton, W.S. Metaphor and readers’ attributions of intimacy. Memory & Cognition 35, 87–94 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195945
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195945