On the Impact of Aptness, Conventionality and Familiarity on Metaphor Processing from a Meta-analytical Point of View

Authors

  • Csilla Rákosi University of Debrecen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.40430

Keywords:

metaphor processing, psycholinguistic experiments, statistical meta-analysis, diverging evidence, conflict resolution

Abstract

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.

Author Biography

Csilla Rákosi, University of Debrecen

Csilla Rákosi, Senior research fellow, MTA-DE-SZTE Research Group for Theoretical Linguistics, University of Debrecen, 4002 Debrecen, Hungary.

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

Published

2020-11-07

How to Cite

Rákosi, C. (2020). On the Impact of Aptness, Conventionality and Familiarity on Metaphor Processing from a Meta-analytical Point of View. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 6(1), 55–106. https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.40430

Issue

Section

Articles