Abstract
Property comparison models of metaphor comprehension assume that the topic and vehicle terms in metaphors are both understood to be referring to their conventional literal referents. In contrast, the interactive property attribution model (Glucksberg, McGlone, & Manfredi, 1997) assumes that the vehicle is understood to be referring to a metaphoric category that includes the topic’s literal referent as a member. A priming paradigm was used to test the implications of these different models. Prior to interpreting a metaphor, participants read (1) the topic or vehicle concept alone, (2) a sentence ascribing a metaphor-relevant property to one concept, or (3) a sentence ascribing a metaphor-irrelevant property to one concept. All of the prime types facilitated metaphor comprehension with the exception of sentences ascribing metaphor-irrelevant properties to vehicles. The failure of these sentences (but not their topic counterparts) to facilitate metaphor comprehension is attributable to their priming an inappropriate literal interpretation of the vehicle term. These results are consistent with the claim that irrelevant information is suppressed during language comprehension (Gernsbacher, 1990) and support the interactive property attribution model.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Black, M. (1962).Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Black, M. (1979).More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp.19–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blasko, D. G., &Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 295–308.
Bobrow, S. A., &Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions.Memory & Cognition,1, 343–346.
Bowdle, B., &Gentner, D. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,34, 244–286.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure-mapping: The relational shift.Child Development,59, 47–59.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosnaidou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., &Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 307–358). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990).Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A., &Faust, M. (1990). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 97–128). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., & Robertson, R. R. (1995).The role of suppression in metaphor interpretation. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Gildea, P., &Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 577–590.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., &Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 85–96.
Glucksberg, S., &Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97, 3–18.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.
Hasher, L., &Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193–255). San Diego: Academic Press.
Keppel, G., Saufley, W. H., &Tokunaga, H. (1992).Introduction to design and analysis (2nd ed). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Malgady, R. G., &Johnson, M. G. (1976). Modifiers in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,5, 43–52.
McGlone, M. S. (1994).Love, journeys, and traveling things: Analogies, metaphors, and categories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought?Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.
Miller, G. A. (1993). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 186–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity.Psychological Review,86, 161–180.
Ortony, A. (1993).Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, G., &Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.),Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 359–378). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Verbrugge, R. R., &McCarrell, N. S. (1977). Metaphor comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling.Cognitive Psychology,9, 494–533.
Wolff, P., &Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 529–541.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGlone, M.S., Manfredi, D.A. Topic—vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition 29, 1209–1219 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206390
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206390