Are Hybrid Pictorial Metaphors Perceived More Strongly Than Pictorial Similes?

References

• Berntsen, D., & Kennedy, J. M. (1994). Contradictions between metaphors: A means of expressing an attitude. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(3), 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms0903_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berntsen, D., & Kennedy, J. M. (1996). Unresolved contradictions specifying attitudes—In metaphor, irony, understatement and tautology. Poetics, 24(1), 13–29. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(95)00013-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billow, R. M. (1977). Metaphor: A review of the psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 81–92. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, J. R., Swanson, S. J., Wagner, A. D., Demb, J. B., Shear, P. K., Glove, G. H., … Rao, S. M. (1995). Determination of language dominance with functional MRI: A comparison with the Wada test. Human Brain Mapping, 1, 235.
   Google Scholar
• Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D. L. (1998). Similarity, relevance, and the comparison process. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 17–30. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1301_2
   Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. doi:10.1007/BF01320076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eviatar, Z., & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348–2359. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogelin, R. (1988). Figuratively speaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. (1994). Pictorial metaphors in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(1), 1–29. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00007-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 379.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. (1979). The interpretation of novel metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 172–185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gabrieli, J. D., Desmond, J. E., Demb, J. B., Wagner, A. D., Stone, M. V., Vaidya, C. J., & Glover, G. H. (1996). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of semantic memory processes in the frontal lobes. Psychological Science, 7(5), 278–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00374.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 307–358.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr, & Gerrig, R. J. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem special’. Metaphor and Symbol, 4(3), 145–158. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms0403_3
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 401–424). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, G. W. (2016). Feature confirmation in object perception: Feature integration theory 26 years on from the Treisman Bartlett lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1910–1940. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.988736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indurkhya, B., Kattalay, K., Ojha, A., & Tandon, P. (2008). Experiments with a creativity-support system based on perceptual similarity. SoMeT (pp. 316–327).Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
   Google Scholar
• Indurkhya, B., & Ojha, A. (2013). An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors and creativity. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(4), 233–253. doi:10.1080/10926488.2013.826554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indurkhya, B., & Ojha, A. (2017). Interpreting visual metaphors: Asymmetry and reversibility. Poetics Today, 38(1), 93–121. doi:10.1215/03335372-3716240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., Poeppe, R. A., Awh, E., Minoshima, S., & Mintun, M. A. (1993). Spatial working memory in humans as revealed by PET. Nature, 363, 623–625. doi:10.1038/363623a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung-Beeman, M. (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 512–518. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures. Perception, 11(5), 589–605. doi:10.1068/p110589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, D. L. (1999). What makes a metaphor stronger than a simile? Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 63–69. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1401_7
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486. doi:10.2307/2025464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. L. (1979). Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 136–147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mudrik, L., Lamy, D., & Deouell, L. Y. (2010). ERP evidence for context congruity effects during simultaneous object–Scene processing. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 507–517. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojha, A., & Indurkhya, B. (2016). On the role of perceptual features in metaphor comprehension. In: Gola E and Ervas F (eds), Metaphor and communication (pp. 147–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, A., Indurkhya, B., & Lee, M. (2017). Is language necessary to interpret visual metaphors? Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, 36, 61.
   Google Scholar
• Ortony, A. (1979b). The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 186–201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. doi:10.1037/h0084295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H. (2009). Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: the case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 155–173. doi:10.1080/10926480903028110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999, October). Support and interference effects in learning from multiple representations. European conference on cognitive science (pp. 447–452). Rome, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbrugge, R. (1980). Transformations in knowing: A realist view of metaphor. In R. Honeck & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 87–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar