Cognitive processes involved in metaphor aptness

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin




vol. 52


No 2


Khatin-Zadeh, Omid : School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China ; Eskandari, Zahra : Chabahar Maritime University



Metaphor aptness ; Class-inclusion model ; metaphorical class ; abstract concepts ; typicality

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne




Committee for Psychological Science PAS


Al-Azary, H., Buchanan, L., (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 296–307.
Andrews, M., Frank, S., Vigliocco, G., (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370.
Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Askari, A., (2017). Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1409323.
Barsalou, L., W., (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In: Neisser, U., (Ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, A. H. (1997). Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(4), 243–259.
Blasko, D.,G., Connine, C., M., (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295-308.
Borghi, A., M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., Tummolini, L., (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292.
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A., E., Rapp, B., C., Romani, C., (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7(3), 161–89. 299008253441
Chiappe, D., L., Kennedy, J., M., (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668-676.
Chiappe, D., L., Kennedy, J., M., Chiappe, P., (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51-68. (03)00003-2
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor & Symbol, 18(2), 85-105.
Cree, G., S., McNorgan, C., McRae, K., (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computationof word meaning: implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658.
Fernandino, L., Humphries, C. J., Seidenberg, M. S., Gross, W. L., Conant, L. L., & Binder, J. R. (2015). Predicting brain activation patterns associated with individual lexical concepts based on five sensory-motor attributes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 17–26.
Gernsbacher, M., A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R., R., W., Werner, N., K., (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433-450.
Gineste, M., D., Indurkhya, B., Scart, V., (2000). Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 117–135.
Glucksberg, S., (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96.
Glucksberg, S., (2008). How metaphor creates categories – quickly! In R. Gibbs (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, (pp. 67- 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9780511816802.006
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006a). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-938.
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006b). On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378.
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., (1993). How metaphors work. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed, pp. 401-424). New York: Cambridge University Press. 9781139173865.020
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi. D., A., McGlone, M., S., (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. In: Wards, T., B., Smith, S., M., Vaid, J., (Eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Metaphors and Processes (pp. 326-350). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1541–1558.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., Manfredi, D., (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50-67.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., R., Goldvarg, Y., (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol. 16(3), 277-293.
Honeck, R., P., Kibler, C., T., Firment, M., J., (1987). Figurative language and psychological views of categorization: Two ships in the night? In: Haskell, R., E., (Ed.), Cognition and Symbolic Structures: The Psychology of Metaphoric Transformation (pp. 103-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jones, L., L., Estes, Z., (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110-124.
Jones, L., L., Estes, Z., (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18-32.
Keysar, B., (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18(3), 247-269.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Eskandari, Z., Banaruee, H., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., (2019). Abstract metaphorical classes: A perspective from distributed models of conceptual representations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50(2), 108–113.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Khoshsima, H., Yarahmadzehi, N., (2018). Suppression from the perspective of distributed models of conceptual representation. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 60, 90–94.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S., (2015). Abstract and concreto representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360.
Kintsch, W., (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., (2003). Metaphors we Live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
Louwerse, M., M., Jeuniaux, P., (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114(1), 96–104.
Masson, M., (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23.
McRae, K., Cree, G., S., (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In: Forde, E., M., E., Humphreys, G. Category specificity in mind and brain. Psychology Press, East Sussex, 211–50.
McRae, K., Cree, G., S., Westmacott, R., de Sa, V., R., (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360–373.
McRae, K., de Sa, V., R., Seidenberg, M., S., (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130.
Moss, H., E., Tyler, L., K., Taylor, K., I., (2007). Conceptual Structure. In: Gaskell, G., editor. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 217- -234, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Onifer, W., Swinney, D., A., (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 225-236.
Ortony, A., (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwanenflugel, P., J., Akin, C., Luh, W., M., (1992). Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 96–104.
Schwanenflugel, P., J., Harnishfeger, K., K., Stowe, R., W., (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concreto words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(5), 499–520.
Taylor, K., I., Devereux, B., J., Tyler, L., K., (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neuro-cognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368–1401.
Thibodeau, P., H., Durgin, F., H., (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226.
Trick, L., Katz, A., N., (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1(3), 185–213.
Tyler, L., K., Moss, H., E., (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252.
Tyler, L., K., Moss, H., E., Durrant-Peatfield, M., R., Levy, J., P., (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75(2), 195–231.
Utsumi, A., (2005). The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(3), 151–172.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., Garrett, M., (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422-88.
Xu, X., (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6),1622–1636.






DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2021.137257

Aims and scope

Polish Psychological Bulletin (founded in 1970) is an official journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Science.The journal publish a variety of papers, including empirical reports of experiments, surveys and field studies, theoretical articles, controversies and analytic papers on important psychological topics. Relevance for an international readership is our prominent goal, Polish Psychological Bulletin does not publish clinical case studies, or technical articles. Submissions from all domains of psychology are encouraged, especially those that address new developments and pursue innovative approaches.

Periodically, the journal will announce a call for papers for special issues. The journal will also entertain unsolicited proposals for special issues that fit the stated scope of the Polish Psychiological Bulletin (please contact the journal’s Editor-in-Chief with a detailed description of your proposal).

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous evaluation of content and merit by independent expert reviewers.

For information on specific requirements, please see the Author Guidelines.

Abstracting & Indexing

Abstracting and Indexing Information

• DESY Publication Database

• Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences

• Dimensions


• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO