On the Impact of Aptness, Conventionality and Familiarity on Metaphor Processing from a Meta-analytical Point of View
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.40430Keywords:
metaphor processing, psycholinguistic experiments, statistical meta-analysis, diverging evidence, conflict resolutionAbstract
Psycholinguistic research into metaphor processing is burdened with empirical problems as experiments provide diverging evidence on the impact of conventionality, familiarity and aptness, and with conceptual issues as the interpretation and operationalization of the three concepts mentioned, as well as the related predictions which can be drawn from theories of metaphor processing, are controversial in the literature. This paper uses tools of statistical meta-analysis in order to bring us closer to the solution of these problems and reveal future lines of research.
References
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., and Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP
correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research 1160, 69–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.034
Bambini, V., Resta, D., and Grimaldi, M. (2014). A dataset of metaphors from the Italian
literature: Exploring psycholinguistic variables and the role of context. Plos One 9(9),
e105634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105634
Blasko, D. G. and Connine, C.M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor
processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(2),
–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295
Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V., and Rothsteind, H. R. (2017). Basics of metaanalysis:
I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods 8,
–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
Meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to
categorization. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society, 90–95.
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1),
–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Brisand, F., Frisson, S., and Sandra, D. (2001). Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a selfpaced
reading task. Metaphor and Symbol 16(1–2), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/109
2001.9678888
Caillies, S. and Declercq, C. (2011). Kill the song – steal the show: What does distinguish
predicative metaphors from decomposable idioms? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
(3), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9165-8
Campbell, S. J. and Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al.’s (1988)
metaphor norms. Behavior Research Methods 48, 330–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13428-015-0575-2
Cardillo, E. R., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., and Chatterjee, A. (2010). Stimulus design is
an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural
hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods 42(3), 651–664. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.651
Cardillo, E.R., Watson, C., & Chatterjee, A. (2017): Stimulus needs are a moving target:
additional matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods 49(2), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13428-016-0717-1
Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or
similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6(4), 668–676. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BF03212977
Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor
and Symbol 16(3-4), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678897
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., and Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than
comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics 31, 51–68. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J. M., and Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the
conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol 18(2), 85–105. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1802_2
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the New Statistics. Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals,
and Meta-analysis. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807002
Dulcinati, G., Mazzarella, D., Pouscoulous, N., and Rodd, J. (2014). Processing metaphor:
The role of conventionality, familiarity and dominance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics
, University College London.
Gagné, C.L. (2002): Metaphoric interpretations of comparison-based combinations.
Metaphor and Symbol 17(3), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1703_1
Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R. Gibbs (Ed.)
The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 109-128. New York: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008
Gentner, D. and Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of
Memory and Language 37, 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2527
Giora, R., Gazal, O., and Goldstein, I. (2012). Salience and context: Interpretation of
metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.
Metaphor and Symbol 27, 22–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.638823
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2),
–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2
Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond
similarity. Psychological Review 97(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., and Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor
comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jmla.1996.2479
Gokcesu, B. S. (2009). Comparison, categorization, and metaphor comprehension. In
N. Taatgen and H. van Rijn (Eds): Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, 567–572.
Jones, L. L. (2004). Metaphor comprehension: An exemplar of ad hoc category creation. MSc
dissertation. Athens, Georgia.
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization.
Journal of Memory and Language 53, 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality
in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 18–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., and Clark, J. M. (1988): Norms for 204 literary and
nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity 3(4), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1
Kertész, A., & Rákosi, Cs. (2012). Data and evidence in linguistics: A plausible argumentation
model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO
Kusumi, T. (1987). Effects of categorical dissimilarity and affective similarity between
constituent words on metaphor appreciation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16(6),
–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067086
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., and Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel
metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 1284, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
brainres.2009.05.088
Marschark, M., Katz, A. N., and Paivio, A. (1983): Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 12(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072712
McKay, M. T. (2004). The development and comprehension of conventional metaphors. PhD
dissertation. University of Florida.
McQuire, M., McCollum, L., & Chatterjee, A. (2017): Aptness and beauty in metaphor.
Language and Cognition 9(2), 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.13
Pierce, R.S. & Chiappe, D.L. (2009): The roles of aptness, conventionality, and working
memory in the production of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol 24, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802568422
Roncero, C. (2013): Understanding figurative language: Studies on the comprehension of
metaphors and similes. PhD Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Roncero, C., Almeida, R. G., Martin, D. C., and de Caro, M. (2016). Aptness predicts
metaphor preference in the lab and on the Internet. Metaphor and Symbol 31(1), 31–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1116908
Sanford, D. (2010). Figuration & frequency: A usage-based approach to metaphor. PhD
dissertation. The University of New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sternberg, R. and Nigro, G. (1980): Interaction and analogy in the comprehension and
appreciation of metaphors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A (Human
Experimental Psychology) 35(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA093211
Thibodeau, P. and Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing
fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol 26(3), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926
2011.583196
Thibodeau, P., Sikos, L., and Durgin, F. H. (2016). What do we learn from rating metaphors?
In A. Papafragou, D. J., Grodner, D. Mirman, and J. Trueswell (Eds) Proceedings of the
th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1769–1774.
Thibodeau, P., Sikos, L., and Durgin, F. H. (2018): Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red
herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences. Behavior Research Methods
(2), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0903-9
Tourangeau, R. and Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology 13,
–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90003-7
Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretive diversity explains metaphor–simile distinction. Metaphor
and Symbol 22(4), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701528071
Utsumi, A. and Kuwabara, Y. (2005). Interpretive diversity as a source of metaphor-simile
distinction. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,
–2235.
Utsumi, A. and Sakamoto, M. (2010). Predicative metaphor comprehension as indirect
categorization. In S. Ohlsson and R. Catrambone (Eds) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, Tex, USA,
–1039.
Utsumi, A. and Sakamoto, M. (2011). Indirect categorization as a process of predicative
metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol 26, 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2011.609120
