Abstract
The current article presents a basic functional-analytic interpretation of metaphor. This work involves an extension of Skinner’s (1957) interpretation of metaphor using relational frame theory (RFT). A basic RFT interpretation of a particular metaphor is outlined, according to which the metaphor acquires its psychological effects when formal stimulus dimensions are contacted via the derivation of arbitrary stimulus relations. This interpretation sees the metaphor as involving four elements: (a) establishing two separate equivalence relations, (b) deriving an equivalence relation between these relations, (c) discriminating a formal relation via this equivalence-equivalence relation, and (d) a transformation of functions on the basis of the formal relation discriminated in the third element. In the second half of the paper, a number of important issues with regard to the RFT interpretation of metaphor are addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.
Barnes, D., & Hampson, P. J. (1993a). Learning to learn: The contribution of behavior analysis to connectionist models of inferential skill in humans. In G. Orchard (Ed.), Neural computing research and applications (Vol. 1, pp. 129–138). London: IOP.
Barnes, D., & Hampson, P. J. (1993b). Stimulus equivalence and connectionism: Implications for behavior analysis and cognitive science. The Psychological Record, 43, 617–638.
Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57–83.
Barnes, D., & Holmes, Y. (1991). Radical behaviorism, stimulus equivalence, and human cognition. The Psychological Record, 41, 19–31.
Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and non-arbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–81.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cul-linan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69–84.
Chase, P. N. (1986). Three perspectives on verbal learning: Associative, cognitive and operant. In P. N. Chase & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Psychological aspects of language: The West Virginia lectures (pp. 5–35). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Dymond, S., & Barnes, B. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251–267.
Fields, L., Hobbie-Reeve, S. A., Adams, B. J., & Reeve, K. J. (1999). Effects of training directionality and class size on equivalence class formation by adults. The Psychological Record, 49, 703–724.
Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: the first international institute on verbal relations (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Hayes, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal events. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 9–30). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Hayes, S. C, & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235–270.
Hayes, S. C, Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skin-nerian approach to language and cognition. New York: Plenum.
Hayes, S. C, Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.) Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian approach to language and cognition (pp. 21–49). New York: Plenum.
Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pilgrim, C, & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.
Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.
Skinner, B. E (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). Recent issues in the analysis of behavior. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.
Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2000, May). Advancing the experimental analysis of metaphor with relational frame theory. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Washington, DC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D. Understanding metaphor: A relational frame perspective. BEHAV ANALYST 24, 191–199 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392030
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392030