METAPHOR FEATURES AND THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ON THE COMPREHENSION OF NON-LITERARY METAPHORS

Katarina Milenković, Dušan Stamenković

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME231002024M
First page
423
Last page
443

Abstract


Given that the use and comprehension of figurative language is one of the most intriguing abilities of the mind, this study extends the line of research related to the process of understanding figurative language to individual differences. The starting assumption is that individual differences affect our ability to understand figurative language, focusing on fluid and crystallized intelligence. These types of intelligence were measured in relation to the ability t1o understand metaphors, and their influence was investigated indirectly, through tests that reliably examine both types of intelligence. The research investigates non-literary metaphors in the Serbian language, normed according to the following dimensions: metaphoricity, aptness, and familiarity. This study seeks to show whether and to what extent fluid and/or crystallized intelligence influence the process of understanding non-literary metaphors normed according to different features. Through selected verbal and non-verbal tests, Raven’s progressive matrices (Raven, 1938), semantic similarities test (Stamenković, Ichien, & Holyoak, 2019a), as well as a non-literary metaphor comprehension test, it is determined in which way fluid and crystallized intelligence play roles in the process of metaphor comprehension, as well as which possible cognitive mechanism allows us to process metaphors. The results show that the comprehension of non-literary metaphors mostly relies on crystallized intelligence, while fluid intelligence seems to be employed in individual cases, only with some groups of metaphors.


Keywords

metaphor comprehension process, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, metaphoricity, aptness, familiarity.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 45–51. DOI:10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.

Arthur Jr, W., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Sanchez-Ku, M. L. (1999). College-sample psychometric and normative data on a short form of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 354–361.

Bambini, V., Canal, P., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M. (2019). Time Course and Neurophysiological Underpinnings of Metaphor in Literary Context. Discourse Processes, 56, 77–97. DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2017.1401876

Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3, 21–36. DOI:10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2

Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308. DOI:10.1037/0278- 7393.19.2.295

Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (2010). Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 63, 942–954. DOI:10.1080/17470210903134351

Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 90–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193

Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1995). Understanding idioms: Do visual images reflect figurative meanings? The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 283–305. DOI:10.1080/09541449508402450

Camac, M. K., & Glucksberg, S. (1984). Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 443–455. DOI:10.1007/BF01068178

Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Stimulus needs are a moving target: 240 additional matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 471–483. DOI:10.3758/s13428-016-0717-1

Cardillo, E. R., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & 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, 651–664. DOI:10.3758/BRM.42 .3.651

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Еducational Psychology, 54, 1–22.

Cattell, R. B. (1967). The theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence checked at the 5-6 year-old level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 209–224.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 172–188. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.006

Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 668–676. DOI:10.3758/BF03212977

Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003a). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68. DOI:10.1016/S0304-422X(03) 00003-2

Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2003b). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 85–105. DOI:10.1207/S15327868MS 1802_2

Figar, V. (2023). Metaphorical framings in The New York Times online press reports about ChatGPT. Philologia Mediana, 15, 381–398. DOI: 10.46630/phm.15.2023.27

Gagné, C. L. (2002). Metaphoric interpretations of comparison-based combinations. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 161–178. DOI:10.1207/S15327868MS1703_1

Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 223–247. DOI:10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896

Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as Structure-Mapping. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr., (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 109–128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI:1017/CBO9780511816802.008

Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331–355. DOI:10.1006/jmla.1997.2527

Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 433–450. DOI:10.1006/jmla.2000.2782

Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & O’Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35–68. DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90053-M

Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Gould, J. J., & Andric, M. (2006). Imagining metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible plausible. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 25, 221–238. DOI: 10.2190/97MK-44MV-1UUF-T5CR

Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183–206. DOI:10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183

Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006a). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17, 935–938. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01807.x

Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006b). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21, 360–378. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x

Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1541–1558. DOI: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, 50–67. DOI:10.1006/jmla.1996.2479

Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 234–259). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.001.0001

Holyoak, К. Ј., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor Comprehension: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 641–671. DOI:10.1037/bul0000145

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107–129.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1982). Whimsy and misunderstanding of gf-gc theory. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 623–633.

Ichien, N., Stamenković, D., & Holyoak, K. (working paper). Large language model displays emergent ability to interpret novel literary metaphors.

Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, L. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 126–135.

Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., & Larwill, L. K. (1988). Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 484–495.

Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110–124. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016

Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 18–32. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Macmillan.

Katz, A., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3, 191–214. DOI:10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1

Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31, 673–689. DOI:10.3758/BF03196107

Kertész, A., Rákosi, C., & Csatár, P. (2012). Data, problems, heuristics and results in cognitive metaphor research. Language Sciences, 34, 715–727. DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.011

Kittay, E. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kusumi, T. (1987). Effects of categorical dissimilarity and affective similarity between constituent words on metaphor appreciation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 577–595.

Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001

Milenković, K. (2021). Odnos osobina metafore i njihovog razumevanja: psiholingvistički pristup [The relation between metaphor features and their comprehension: A psycholinguistic approach] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Niš: University of Niš.

Milenković, K., Stamenković, D., & Figar, V. (2016). The role of foreign language learning in metaphor identification: An experimental study. Folia Linguistica et Litteraria, 14, 187–207.

Milenković, K., Tasić, M. & Stamenković, D. (working paper). Influence of translation on perceived metaphor features: Quality, aptness, metaphoricity and familiarity.

Newsome, M. R., & Glucksberg, S. (2002). Older adults filter irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Experimental Aging Research, 28(3), 253–267. DOI: 10.1080/03610730290080317

Nippold, M. A., & Sullivan, M. P. (1987). Verbal and perceptual analogical reasoning and proportional metaphor comprehension in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 367–376. DOI:10.1044/jshr.3003.367

R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.6) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/

Roncero, C., & de Almeida, R. G. (2015). Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 800–812. DOI:10.3758/s13428-014-0502-y

Saeed, J. I. (2009). Semantics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Snow, R. E., Kyllonen, P. C., & Marshalek, B. (1984). The topography of ability and learning correlations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 47–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stamenković, D., Ichien, N., & Holyoak, K. J. (2019a). Metaphor comprehension: An individual-differences approach. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 108–118. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2018.12.003

Stamenković, D., Ichien, N., & Holyoak, K. J. (2020). Individual Differences in Comprehension of Contextualized Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 35, 285–301. DOI:10.1080/10926488.2020.1821203

Stamenković, D., Milenković, K., & Dinčić, J. (2019b). Studija normiraja književnih i neknjiževnih metafora iz srpskog jezika [A norming study of Serbian literary and nonliterary metaphors]. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 62(2), 89–104.

Stamenković, D., Milenković, K., Ichien, N., & Holyoak, K. J. (2023). An Individual-Differences Approach to Poetic Metaphor: Impact of Aptness and Familiarity. Metaphor and Symbol, 38, 149–161, DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2021.2006046

Sternberg, R. J., & Nigro, G. (1983). Interaction and analogy in the comprehension and appreciation of metaphors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 35A, 17–38.

The jamovi project (2021). jamovi. (Version 1.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org

Thibodeau, P. H., & Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 206–226. DOI:10.1080/10926488.2011.583196

Thibodeau, P. H., Sikos, L., & Durgin, F. H. (2017). Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 759–772.

Tourangeau, R., & Rips, L. J. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 452–472. DOI:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90016-D

Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27–55. DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90003-7

Trick, L., & Katz, A. N. (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1, 185–213. DOI:10.1207/s15327868ms0103_3

Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretive diversity explains metaphor–simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 291–312. DOI:10.1080/1092648070152807

Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 529–541. DOI:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.529




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME231002024M

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


© University of Niš, Serbia
Creative Commons licence CC BY-NC-ND
Print ISSN: 0353-7919
Online ISSN: 1820-7804