Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between the Content and the Form of Metaphorical Statements

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research suggests that the quality of a metaphorical topic-vehicle pairing should be the determinant to the choice of a proper grammatical form, nominal metaphor versus simile. Two studies examined the relationship between the quality of the content of a metaphorical statement and its grammatical form. Study 1 showed that the two grammatical forms did not differ in aptness when the quality of topic-vehicle pairs and the conventionality of vehicles, a factor associated with the quality of metaphorical expressions, were controlled. With an online comprehension measure, Study 2 found that high quality metaphorical pairings were easier to process than low quality metaphorical pairings in both the metaphor form and the simile form. For high quality metaphorical pairings, information related to both the topics and the vehicles was highly activated at an early stage of processing. The relations among factors involved in the interpretive process of metaphorical language are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aisenman R. A. (1999) Structure mapping and the simile – metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol 14: 45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balota D. A., Yap M. J., Cortese M. J., Hutchison K. A., Kessler B., Loftis B., Neely J. H., Nelson D. L., Simpson G. B., Treiman R. (2007) The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39: 445–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blasko D. G., Connine C. M. (1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19: 295–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowdle B. F., Gentner D. (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1): 193–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe D.L., Kennedy J.M. (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 371–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe D. L., Kennedy J. M., Smykowski T. (2003) Reversibility, aptness, the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol 18: 85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D., Bowdle B. F. (2005) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 223–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D., Wolff P. (1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 331–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb H., Wales R. (1990) Metaphor or simile: Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form. Metaphor and Symbol 5: 199–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg S., Haught C. (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language 21: 360–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg S., Keysar B. (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97: 3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2001). Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. Abstract of the Psychonomic Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Vol. 6. Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society Publications, pp. 103.

  • Johnson M. G., Malgady R. G. (1979) Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8: 249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones L. L., Estes Z. (2005) Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 110–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones L. L., Estes Z. (2006) Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 18–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer T. K., Foltz P. W., Laham D. (1998) An introduction of latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processing 25: 259–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschark M., Katz A. N., Paivio A. (1983) Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12: 17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur P. (1977) Rule of metaphor. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Rips L. (1991) Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 452–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Sternberg R. J. (1981) Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology 13: 27–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsumi A. (2007) Interpretive diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol 22: 291–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P., Gentner D. (2000) Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 26: 529–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA

    Xu Xu

Authors
  1. Xu Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, X. The Relationship Between the Content and the Form of Metaphorical Statements. J Psycholinguist Res 39, 165–178 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9131-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9131-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation