Details

Title

Cognitive processes involved in metaphor aptness

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Yearbook

2021

Volume

vol. 52

Issue

No 2

Affiliation

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

Authors

Keywords

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

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Coverage

147-152

Publisher

Committee for Psychological Science PAS

Bibliography

Al-Azary, H., Buchanan, L., (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0650-7
Andrews, M., Frank, S., Vigliocco, G., (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12096
Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Askari, A., (2017). Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1409323. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1409323
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_3
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212977
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-422x (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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1802_2
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782
Gineste, M., D., Indurkhya, B., Scart, V., (2000). Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1503_1
Glucksberg, S., (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: 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), 92-96.
Glucksberg, S., (2008). How metaphor creates categories – quickly! In R. Gibbs (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, (pp. 67- 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo 9780511816802.006
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006a). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01807.x
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006b). On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
Glucksberg, S., 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., Keysar, B., (1993). How metaphors work. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed, pp. 401-424). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-013
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1541–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00003-x
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., Manfredi, D., (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/e537272012-417
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/e537052012-119
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
Keysar, B., (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18(3), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544895
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. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.1.1919
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S., (2015). Abstract and concreto representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha
Kintsch, W., (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212981
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002
Masson, M., (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.3
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087323
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.99
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196957
Ortony, A., (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173865.003
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208259
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90022-8
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.568227
Thibodeau, P., H., Durgin, F., H., (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0103_3
Tyler, L., K., Moss, H., E., (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01651-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2003_1
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
Xu, X., (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6),1622–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.005

Date

2021.08.09

Type

Article

Identifier

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

• EBSCO

• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO

Publication Ethics Policy

Peer Review and Ethics

Polish Psychological Bulletin is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review.
Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous authorities in the field.
Our guidance on publishing ethics is in accrdance with the COPE standards (see: https://publicationethics.org).
×