Cover not available

In:Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage
Edited by Augusto Soares da Silva
[Figurative Thought and Language 11] 2021
► pp. 75–108

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Evaluating metaphor accounts via their pragmatic effects

 | University of Alberta
Published online: 19 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.03col
Abstract
A prominent pragmatic effect of metaphor is meaning enhancement (Colston, 2015). Relative to comparable non-metaphorical language, metaphors can provide stronger, richer, or more poignant delivery of a proposition, idea, attitude, emotion, schema, or other meaningful construct. Metaphor constructions also alter their component parts (e.g., source and target domains). The paper measures pragmatic effect performance when metaphors are assembled in different ways, as a means of evaluating metaphor accounts. In four experiments metaphors were altered by using; (1) weak versus strong SDs, (2) mixed versus unmixed SDs, (3) single versus double instantiations of SDs, and (4) using standard metaphor versus simile constructions. Observed differences (e.g., in meaning enhancement) support the idea that metaphor understandings arise in part due to embodied simulations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metaphor accounts
    • 2.1Similarity
    • 2.2Categorization
    • 2.3Conceptual metaphor
    • 2.4Blending
    • 2.5Embodied simulation
  • 3.Varyingly structured metaphors
  • 4.Predictions of metaphor accounts
    • 4.1Similarity predictions
    • 4.2Categorization predictions
    • 4.3Conceptual metaphor predictions
    • 4.4Blending predictions
    • 4.5Embodied simulation predictions
  • 5.Experiments
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Materials
    • 5.3Results
    • 5.5Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (43)
References
Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor & Symbol, 16, 249–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. G. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., Gusten, J., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. Neuroimage, 139, 218–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). How language makes meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, E. C., Humphries, S., & Chatterjee, A. (2019). Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement: The role of metaphor and context, AJOB Neuroscience, 10(1), 35–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Clement, C. A. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in interpreting analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 307–358). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philidelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honeck, R. P., Kibler, C. T., & Firment, M. J. (1987). Figurative language and psychological views of categorization: Two ships in the night? In R. E. Haskell (Ed.), Cognition and symbolic structures: The psychology of metaphoric transformation (pp. 103–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, A. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similes: A reaction time study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11, 145–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. G., & Malgady, R. G. (1979). Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 249–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). Toward a perceptual theory of metaphoric comprehension. In R. P. Honeck, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 259–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N. (1982). Metaphoric relationships: The role of feature saliency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 283–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (1990). Metaphor – Its intellectual basis. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 5, 115–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, D. L. (1999). What makes a metaphor stronger than a simile? Metaphor & Symbol, 14, 63–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2016). A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malgady, R. G., & Johnson, M. G. (1976). Modifiers in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 43–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). Measurement of figurative language: Semantic feature models of comprehension and appreciation. In R. P. Honeck, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 239–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marschark, M., Katz, A., & Paivio, A. (1983). Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 17–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muller, C. (2016). Why mixed metaphors make sense. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor, (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. E. (1985). Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasse, C. (2016). Feeling for others: Environmental justice, emotion, and moral imagination in ethnic American literature. Unpublished master’s thesis. Klagenfurt, Austria: Alpen-Adria-Universitat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2017). Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Rips, L. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 452–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viramontes, H. M. (1995). Under the feet of Jesus. New York: Plume.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Colston, Herbert L.
2025. A look at, inside, and outside metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Blynova, Iryna , Nadiia Breslavets, Svitlana Repetii, Borys Kovalenko & Liudmyla Diachuk
2024. Linguistic and Stylistic Means of Comic Effect Creation in Prose Text - An Educational Study. Cadernos de Educação Tecnologia e Sociedade 17:se5 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
KOZLOVA, TETYANA & YURIY POLYEZHAYEV
2022. A COGNITIVE-PRAGMATIC STUDY OF AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH PHRASEOLOGY. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 12:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue