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. 135–164

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

Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Radboud University Nijmegen
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
Abstract
Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.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) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure ( (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 21, 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), we identified metaphors in two literary stories. Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Three dimensions of metaphor (in fiction)
  • The identification of potentially deliberate metaphors in language use
  • (Deliberate) metaphor processing
  • Method and materials
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Questionnaires
      • Absorption
      • Appreciation
      • Reading experience
    • Metaphor identification procedure
      • Reliability of coding
    • Experimental procedure
    • Apparatus
    • Stimulus presentation
    • Experimental design and statistical analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (76)
References
Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle (1940). The art of poetry (I. Bywater, Trans.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research, 11601, 69–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bambini, V., Canal, P., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M. (2018). Time course and neurophysiological underpinnings of metaphor in literary context. Discourse Processes. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1(7).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blank, G. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(3), 21–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Block, C. K., & Baldwin, C. L. (2010). Cloze probability and completion norms for 498 sentences: Behavioral and neural validation using event-related potentials. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 665–670. 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
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3–28). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2012). From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. Neuroimage, 59(4), 3212–3221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpenter, P., & Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275–307). New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians & Rhetoric. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave-Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chateau, D., & Jared, D. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 143–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Columbus, G., Sheikh, N. A., Côté-Lecaldare, M., Häuser, K., Baum, S. R., & Titone, D. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An eye movement study of sentence reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1057. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 958–968. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorst, A. G. (2015). More or different metaphors in fiction? A quantitative cross-register comparison. Language and Literature, 24(1), 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forgács, B., Bohrn, I., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M. J., Pléh, C., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1432–1442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2015a). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 73–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodkind, A., & Bicknell, K. (2018). Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2018) (pp. 10–18). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakemulder, J. (2004). Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (pp. 1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. (2015a). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In R. M. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use (pp. 135–195). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 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
Jacobs, A. M., & Willems, R. M. (2017). The fictive brain: Neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Review of General Psychology, Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor clusters in business media discourse: A social cognition approach. Diss. Vienna University. [URL]
Koopman, E. M. (2010). Reading the suffering of others: The ethical possibilities of ‘empathic unsettlement’. Journal of Literary Theory, 4(2), 235–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 561, 35–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krennmayr, T., Bowdle, B. F., Mulder, G., & Steen, G. J. (2014). Economic competition is like auto racing. Building metaphorical schemas when reading text. Metaphor and the Social World, 4(1), 65–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuijpers, M. M., Hakemulder, F., Tan, E. S., & Doicaru, M. M. (2014). Exploring absorbing reading experiences. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 89–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Dambacher, M., Nuthmann, A., & Kliegl, R. (2010). The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 1838–1857. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 12841, 145–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master Metaphor List. Technical report, University of California, Berkely. Retrieved from: [URL]
Lakoff, J. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1966). English in Advertising: A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London, United Kingdom: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Language in literature: style and foregrounding. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luke, S. G., & Henderson, J. M. (2016). The influence of content meaningfulness on eye movements across tasks: Evidence from scene viewing and reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, H. M. & Willems, R. M. (in press). Mental Simulation during Literary Reading: Individual Differences Revealed with Eye-Tracking. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization and affect. Response to literary stories. Poetics, 221, 389–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukařovský, J. (1932/1964). Standard language and poetic language. In: P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17–30). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nabokov, V. (1996). Verzamelde verhalen 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: De Bezige Bij.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1979). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and register variation. The personalisation of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk, Netherlands: Box Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rataj, K. (2014). Surfing the brainwaves of metaphor comprehension. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50(1), 55–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton Jr, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3), SI21–SI49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (submitted). The role of co-text in the analysis of potentially deliberate metaphor.
(in press). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. To appear in Corpora 14(3).
(2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 21, 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. & Steen, G. J. (2008). Metaphor in literature. In Gibbs Jr, R. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 232–246). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Harrison, M. R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 811. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Bulletin, 30(4), 415–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dale Hedendaags Nederlands Online. [URL]
van den Bosch, A., Busser, B., Canisius, S., & Daelemans, W. (2007). An efficient memory-based morphosyntactic tagger and parser for Dutch. In P. Dirix, I. Schuurman, V. Vandeghinste, & F. Van Eynde (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 99–114).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Hoven, E., Hartung, F., Burke, M., & Willems, R. M. (2016). Individual differences in sensitivity to style during literary reading: Insights from eye-tracking. Collabra, 2(1): 251, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Essen, R. (2014). Hier wonen ook mensen. Amsterdam: Atlas Contact.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
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zygnier, S. (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2016). Caring about Dostoyevsky: The untapped potential of studying literature. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 243–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Wong, Sum & Qiliang Xu
2025. Mapping metaphor research in translation and interpreting studies: a bibliometric analysis from 1964 to 2023. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 61:4 ► pp. 597 ff. DOI logo
Wong, Sum
2024. Deliberate metaphor (use) in translation and interpreting. Metaphor and the Social World 14:2 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Steen, Gerard J.
2023. Thinking by metaphor, fast and slow: Deliberate Metaphor Theory offers a new model for metaphor and its comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Klomberg, Bien & Neil Cohn
2022. Picture perfect peaks: comprehension of inferential techniques in visual narratives. Language and Cognition 14:4 ► pp. 596 ff. DOI logo
Nishihara, Takayuki
2022. EFL learners’ reading traits for lexically easy short poetry. Cogent Education 9:1 DOI logo
Eekhof, Lynn S., Kobie van Krieken, José Sanders & Roel M. Willems
2021. Reading Minds, Reading Stories: Social-Cognitive Abilities Affect the Linguistic Processing of Narrative Viewpoint. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Mak, Marloes & Roel M. Willems
2021. Eyelit: Eye Movement and Reader Response Data During Literary Reading. Journal of Open Humanities Data 7 DOI logo
Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Slowing Metaphor Down [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 26], 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