Metaphor processing: Referring and predicating
- PMID: 37419067
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105534
Metaphor processing: Referring and predicating
Abstract
The general consensus emerging from decades of empirical investigation of metaphor processing is that, when appropriately contextualised, metaphorically used language is no more demanding of processing effort than literally used language. However, there is a small number of studies which contradict this position, notably Noveck, Bianco, and Castry (2001): they maintain that relevance-based pragmatic theory predicts increased cognitive costs incurred in deriving the extra effects that metaphors typically yield, and they provide experimental results that support this prediction. In our study, we first surveyed and assessed the tasks and stimulus materials of many experiments on metaphor processing from the 1970's to the present day. The most telling result was an apparent disparity between the processing of metaphorical language used predicatively versus referentially. We then ran two self-paced reading experiments to test our hypothesis that when used as a predicate, metaphorical language is no more costly than literal language, but when used referentially, it does incur extra costs, even given a preceding biasing context. In the first experiment, all metaphorical referring expressions were in subject position so occurred early in the sentence; in the second experiment, we controlled for any effect of sentence position by placing metaphorical referring expressions in object position, thus later in the sentence, similar to the predicate metaphors. In both cases, metaphorical referring incurred significantly greater costs relative to literal equivalents than did metaphorical predication, with no effect of sentence position. We end with a brief analysis of why the referential use of metaphor is special and effort-demanding.
Keywords: Cognitive benefits; Metaphor; Predication; Processing effort; Reference; Relevance theory.
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
The relationship between metaphor skills and Theory of Mind in middle childhood: Task and developmental effects.Cognition. 2023 Sep;238:105504. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105504. Epub 2023 Jun 22. Cognition. 2023. PMID: 37354784
-
Is the Processing of Chinese Verbal Metaphors Simulated or Abstracted? Evidence From an ERP Study.Front Psychol. 2022 Jul 13;13:877997. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877997. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2022. PMID: 35911040 Free PMC article.
-
Metaphorical expressions originating from human senses: Psycholinguistic and affective norms for German metaphors for internal state terms (MIST database).Behav Res Methods. 2022 Feb;54(1):365-377. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01639-w. Epub 2021 Jul 8. Behav Res Methods. 2022. PMID: 34240337 Free PMC article.
-
Pragmatic complexity in metaphor interpretation.Cognition. 2023 Aug;237:105455. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105455. Epub 2023 Apr 12. Cognition. 2023. PMID: 37058837 Review.
-
Development of Metaphorical Thought before Language: the Pragmatic Construction of Metaphors in Action.Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2017 Dec;51(4):618-642. doi: 10.1007/s12124-016-9373-3. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2017. PMID: 27943154 Review.
Cited by
-
An empirical study on the development of metaphorical comprehension of Chinese children.Front Psychol. 2024 Jan 8;14:1254129. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1254129. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38259583 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous