Abstract
Gibbs (1990) found that metaphoric referential descriptions take longer to read than literal references, in contrast to the usual result that metaphors and literal sentences are about equally easy to comprehend. This study was performed as an investigation of Gibbs's finding. In Experiment 1, subjects received story contexts in which characters clearly shared knowledge relevant to the metaphoric referring term. In Experiment 2, we tried to ensure that the intended referent was very salient by mentioning it in the sentence just prior to the crucial sentence. Neither of these manipulations eliminated the large response time advantage for literal referring expressions. In Experiment 3, the same metaphors were used as sentence predicates rather than as referring expressions: the metaphors were no more difficult to understand than literal paraphrases. Possible explanations for the difficulty of metaphoric references, as opposed to metaphoric predicates, are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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.
Clark, H. H., &Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.),Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., &Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 245–258.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1990). The locus of the associative-priming effect in the mental lexicon. ln D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Comprehension processes in rending (pp. 101–123). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dell, G. S., Mckoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric references in reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 121–132.
Francis, W. N.,&Kučera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gerrig, R. J., &Healy.A. F. (1983). Dual processes in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 667–675.
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory.Cognitive Science,8, 275–304.
Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Mutual knowledge and the psychology of conversational inference.Journal of Pragmatics,11, 561–588.
Gibbs, R. W. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 56–66.
Gibbs, R. W., &Nagaoka, N. (1985). Getting the hang of American slang: Studies on understanding and remembering slang metaphors.Language & Speech,28, 177–194.
Gildea, P., &Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 577–590.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., &Bookin, H. G. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 85–98.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hoffman, R. R., &Honeck, R. P. (1980). A peacock looks at its legs: Cognitive science and figurative language. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),Cognition and figurative language (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 375–385.
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234.
Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'brien, E. J., Duffy, S. A., &Myers, J. L. (1986). Anaphoric inference during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 346–352.
Ortony, A. (1980). Some psycholinguistic aspects of metaphor. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),Cognition and figurative language (pp. 69–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., &Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 465–477.
Reddy, M. J. (1969). Asemantic approach to metaphor. InPapers from the fifth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 240–251). Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Linguistics.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 78–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanford, A. J., &Garrrod, S. C. (1981).Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 92–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shinjo, M., &Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of context on metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 226–241.
Tourangeau, R. (1982). Metaphor and cognitive structure. In D. S. Miall (Ed.),Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 14–35). Sussex, U.K.: Harvester Press.
Tourangeau, R., &Rips, L. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 452–472.
Tourangeau, R., &Sternberg, R. J. (1981).Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology,13, 27–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH41704.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Onishi, K.H., Murphy, G.L. Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Mem Cogn 21, 763–772 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202744
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202744