Abstract
Subjects read target sentences preceded by either short or long context that induced either a metaphoric or a literal target reading. As had been found by Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, and Antos (1978), metaphoric targets were comprehended about as quickly as literals when context was long, but more slowly than literals when context was short. The latter result may have been due to the failure of computing a conceptual relationship between short context and metaphoric target; targets unrelated to prior context took as long to comprehend as metaphoric targets. Another experiment showed that metaphorically expressed targets were read more quickly when they followed metaphorically expressed context than when they followed literal context, but literal targets were read quickest when they followed literal context. These results are discussed within a schema framework and within a “process priming” hypothesis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Carpenter, P. A., &Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations.Journal of verbal Learning and verbal Behavior,20, 137–160.
Cassirer, E. (1923).Substance and function. Chicago: Open Court.
Gildea, P., &Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphors: The role of context.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22, 577–590.
Haviland, S. E., &Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,13, 512–521.
Inhoff, A. W. (1983). Attentional strategies during the reading of short stories. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes. New York: Academic Press.
Koen, F. (1965). An inter-verbal explication of the nature of metaphor.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,4, 129–133.
Kûcera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., &Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context upon comprehension.Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior,17, 465–477.
Rayner, K., Inhoff, A. W., Morrison, R. E., Slowiaczek, M. L., &Bertera, J. H. (1981). Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,7, 167–179.
Richards, I. A. (1936)The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969).Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought. London: Cambridge University Press.
Verbrugge, R. R., &Mccarrell, N. S. (1977). Metaphoric comprehension studies in reminding and resembling.Cognitive Psychology,9, 494–533.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 79-17600 and Grant HD17246 from the National Institute of Health (principal investigator, Keith Rayner).
—Steven W. Keele served as Action Editor on this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Inhoff, A.W., Lima, S.D. & Carroll, P.J. Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition 12, 558–567 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213344
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213344