Cover not available

Article published In: Empirical Studies of Literariness
Edited by Massimo Salgaro and Paul Sopčák
[Scientific Study of Literature 8:1] 2018
► pp. 47–76

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

Living metaphor as the site of bidirectional literary engagement

 | University of Alberta
 | University of Alberta
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18004.kui
Abstract
Articulation of an interactive model of literariness calls for separate specification of (a) a text’s perceptible mode of representation, (b) a reader’s mode of engagement with a text so perceived, and (c) the generative (e.g., creative, expressive) effects of the interaction between this mode of representation and mode of reader engagement. We present a model that identifies two aspects of metaphoric textual representation: structured sequences of nominal metaphors and quasi-metaphoric structures with optional metaphoric construal. This model also distinguishes two modes of reader engagement: expressive enactment and integrative comprehension (Kuiken, D., & Douglas, S. (2017). Forms of absorption that facilitate the aesthetic and explanatory effects of literary reading. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative Absorption (Vol. 271, pp. 219–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The generativity of literary reading is located especially within the interplay between expressive enactment and sequences of metaphoric (and quasi-metaphoric) modes of representation. Evidence suggests that readers reporting expressive enactment also report inexpressible realizations and a temporal progression leading through epistemic tensions that comprise “living metaphor” (Ricoeur, P. (1981). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language (R. Czerny, Trans.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Thus the generativity – and aesthetic effects – of literary reading are found within the departures from conventionality that comprise the emergent meanings of complex metaphoric structures.
Article outline
  • Generativity in response to metaphoric modes of representation
  • Feeling inexpressibility during engagement with metaphoric modes of representation
  • Perspectives on the creativity of literary metaphor
    • Bidirectional interactions
    • Related theories of the creativity of metaphor
  • Study 1
    • Participants
    • Procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Expressive enactment and feeling realization
  • Study 2
    • Participants
    • Procedures summary
      • Metaphoric class inclusion task (M-CIT)
      • Absorption-like states questionnaire (ASQ)
      • Experiencing questionnaire (EQ)
      • Aesthetic outcomes
      • Analyses: Models 1–2
    • Results
      • Analyses: Models 3–4
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Motivating theory revision
  • References
References (91)
References
Aryani, A., Kraxenberger, M., Ullrich, S., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2016). Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 191–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. (M. Jolas, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2015). Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 76–98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., & Benedek, M. (2017). Brain networks underlying novel metaphor production. Brain and Cognition, 1111, 163–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, A. H. (1997). Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(4), 243–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 480–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 273–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertens, J. W. (2014). Literary theory: The basics (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borges, J. L. (2000). Labyrinths: Selected stories and other writing (D. A. Yates, Ed.). Harmonsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a process-focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 532–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N. (2006). On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cupchik, G. C. (2016). The aesthetics of emotion: Up the down staircase of the mind-body. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, P. (2013). Reading and the reader (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeRewal, T., & Roth, M. (2009). John Shade’s duplicate selves: An alternative shadean theory of ‘Pale Fire.’ Nabokov Online Journal, 31, 1–36. Retrieved from [URL]
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. L. Cooper & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol. 41, pp. 369–399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from [URL]
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Djikic, M., & Oatley, K. (2014). The art in fiction: From indirect communication to changes of the self. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 498–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 149–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003a). Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication, 19(19), 57–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). The way we think. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fayn, K., Tiliopoulos, N., & MacCann, C. (2015). Interest in truth versus beauty: Intellect and Openness reflect different pathways towards interest. Personality and Individual Differences, 811, 47–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2014). Subcategorisation, not uncertainty, drives the modification effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1283–1294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gendlin, E. (1978). Befindlichkeit: Heidegger and the philosophy of psychology. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(1–3), 43–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gendlin, E. T. (1997). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: A philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1990). The process of understanding literary metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 19(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Identifying and appreciating poetic metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 31(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Bogdonovich, J. (1999). Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 37–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189–1210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories – quickly. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goatly, A. (2011). The language of metaphors (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodblatt, C., & Glicksohn, J. (2017a). Bidirectionality and metaphor: An introduction. Poetics Today, 38(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). Discordia Concors and bidirectionality: Embodied cognition in John Donne’s Songs and Sonnets. Poetics Today, 38(1), 163–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M. M., Tan, E. S. H., Bálint, K., & Doicaru, M. M. (2017). The handbook of narrative absorption. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakemulder, F., & van Peer, W. (2015). Empirical stylistics. In V. Sotirova (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to stylistics (pp. 189–207). London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heringa, H. (2012). A multidominance approach to appositional constructions. Lingua, 122(6), 554–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunt, R., & Vipond, D. (1985). Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in reader-oriented theory, criticism, and pedagogy, 141, 23–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1973). Experience and judgment: Investigations in a genealogy of logic. (L. Landgrebe, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91, 186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M., & Kinder, A. (2018). What makes a metaphor literary? Answers from two computational studies. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 85–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1966). Grammatical parallelism and its Russian facet. Language, 42(2), 399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Language in literature. (K. Pomorska & S. Rudy, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, W. (1890/1918). The principles of psychology (Vol. 11). New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H. (2017). Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 35–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(4), 191–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences: Openness, intellect, and creativity. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 249–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2008). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 129–142). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., Campbell, P., & Sopčák, P. (2012). The Experiencing Questionnaire: Locating exceptional reading moments. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(2), 243–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., & Douglas, S. (2017). Forms of absorption that facilitate the aesthetic and explanatory effects of literary reading. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative Absorption (Vol. 271, pp. 219–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., Miall, D. S., & Sikora, S. (2004). Forms of self-implication in literary reading. Poetics Today, 25(2), 171–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., & Sharma, R. (2013). Effects of loss and trauma on sublime disquietude during literary reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(2), 240–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lea, R. B., Rapp, D. N., Elfenbein, A., Mitchel, A. D., & Romine, R. S. (2008). Sweet silent thought alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science, 19(7), 709–716. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehne, M., Engel, P., Rohrmeier, M., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S. (2015). Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0124550. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mangan, B. (2000). What feeling Is the “feeling of knowing?” Consciousness and Cognition, 9(4), 538–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEwan, I. (2008). On Chesil Beach. Toronto, Canada: Vintage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Kuehnast, M., & Jacobsen, T. (2015). Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PloS One, 10(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Knoop, C. A. (2017). The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics, 631, 47–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22(5), 389–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukařovský, J. (1976). On poetic language. J. Burbank & P. Steiner (Trans.). Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nabokov, V. (1962). Pale fire. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of Openness to Experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 571–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porat, R., & Shen, Y. (2015). Imposed metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(2), 77–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1981). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language (R. Czerny, Trans.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sikora, S., Kuiken, D., & Miall, D. S. (2011). Expressive reading: A phenomenological study of readers’ experience of Coleridge’s “The rime of the ancient mariner.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 258–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 75–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 208–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sopčák, P. (2007). ‘Creation from nothing’: A foregrounding study of James Joyce’s drafts for Ulysses. Language and Literature, 16(2), 183–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 67–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Identifying metaphors in language. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 73–87). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU (Vol. 141). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternberg, M. (2006). Telling in Time (III): Chronology, estrangement, and stories of literary history. Poetics Today, 27(1), 125–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terai, A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). An experimental examination of emergent features in metaphor interpretation using semantic priming effects. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 341 (pp. 2399–2404). Retrieved from [URL]
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Rips, L. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 452–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797–817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456–1488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Sopcak, Paul
2025. 63“Fictive Reality”: Constituting Self and Lifeworld Through Narrative. In Culture, Cognition, Narrative, ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Price, Hazel
2022. The year’s work in stylistics 2021. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 31:4 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Sopcak, Paul, Don Kuiken & Shawn Douglas
2022. Existential reflection and morality. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Kuijpers, Moniek M.
2021. Exploring the dimensional relationships of story world absorption. Scientific Study of Literature 11:2 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Don, Shawn Douglas & Moniek Kuijpers
2021. Openness to experience, absorption-like states, and the aesthetic, explanatory, and pragmatic effects of literary reading. Scientific Study of Literature 11:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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