Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article looks at metaphor aptness from the perspective of the class-inclusion model of metaphor comprehension and those models that assume a componential nature for the meanings of concepts. When the metaphor X is a Y is processed, the concept of X is included in a metaphorical class that is represented by Y, which is usually the most typical member of the metaphorical class. Degree of saliency of the defining feature in the vehicle and the extent to which this feature matches a relevant dimension of topic is the key factor in the degree of aptness of the metaphor. Degree of aptness becomes more complex in those metaphors that describe an abstract concept in terms of another concept. These metaphors include X into a metaphorical class through the mediation of those concepts that are associated to the abstract concept. If the associated concepts have a high degree of typicality in the metaphorical class, they could be better mediators for including the abstract concept into the metaphorical class. The variations of abstract concepts across individuals and their dependency on contexts and cultures could explain why such metaphors may have different degrees of aptness for different people.
Go to article

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
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
1
Zahra Eskandari
2

  1. School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
  2. Chabahar Maritime University
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The domain of motion events is widely used to metaphorically describe abstract concepts, particularly emotional states. Why motion events are effective for describing abstract concepts is the question that this article intends to answer. In the literature of the field, several reasons have been suggested to be behind the suitability of motion events for describing these concepts, such as high concreteness of motion events, their high imageability, and the ability of comprehender to simultaneously imagine components of motion events. This article suggests that motion events are particularly effective for metaphorical description of those domains which have the feature of dynamic change over a period of time. This is particularly the case with emotional states. Since changes in emotions take place throughout a period of time, they could best be described by motion events which have the same feature. In other words, the continuous change in emotions is understood in terms of continuous change in the location of a moving object in the 3D space. Based on the arguments of embodied theories of cognition, it would be no surprise to see the involvement of similar areas of the brain in understanding emotions and motions.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
Zahra Eskandari
Sedigheh Vahdat
Hassan Banaruee
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article looks at the semantic space of abstract and concrete concepts from the perspective of distributed models of conceptual representations. It focuses on abstract metaphorical classes and the mechanisms through which these concepts are processed. When the metaphor X is a Y is understood, X is included in the abstract metaphorical class of Y. This metaphorical class is abstract because the most of semantic features of Y are filtered out through a suppressiveoriented mode of processing. It is suggested that abstract metaphorical classes of living things are usually defined by a single or a very small set of semantic features. Therefore, such metaphorical classes are highly abstract. On the other hand, abstract metaphorical classes of nonliving things are defined by a relatively larger cluster of semantic features. Therefore, abstract metaphorical classes of nonliving things have a relatively higher degree of concreteness compared to those of living things. In other words, abstract metaphorical classes of living things and nonliving things are rather different in terms of nature and the structure of semantic space.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
Zahra Eskandari
Hassan Banaruee
Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more