Number of shared topic-vehicle significant features affects speakers’ preference for metaphorical expressions

References

• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Google Scholar
• Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212977
   Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678897
   Google Scholar
• Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(4), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0204_2
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fussell, S., & Krauss, R. (1989a). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90019-X
   Google Scholar
• Fussell, S., & Krauss, R. (1989b). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(6), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190603
   Google Scholar
• Fussell, S., & Moss, M. (1998). Figurative language in emotional communication. In S. Fussell & R. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 113–141). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., Buchalter, D. L., Moise, J. F., & Farrar, W. T. (1993). Literal meaning and figurative language. Discourse Processes, 16(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544846
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories—quickly. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (1989). Metaphors in conversation: How are they understood? why are they used? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0403_2
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
   Google Scholar
• Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2001). Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. In Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society 42nd Annual Meeting (Vol. 6, p. 103). Psychonomic Society Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Haught, C. (2013). A tale of two tropes: How metaphor and simile differ. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(4), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.826555
   Google Scholar
• Kusumi, T. (1995). Hiyu no shori katei to imi kouzou [The semantic structure and processes of metaphorical expressions]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobou.
   Google Scholar
• Nakamoto, K. (2003). Semantic priming effect of metaphor constituent terms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.1.33
   Google Scholar
• Nakamoto, K., & Kusumi, T. (2004). A classification of 120 Japanese metaphorical expressions on the basis of four psychological dimensions. The Science of Reading, 48, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19011/sor.48.1_1
   Google Scholar
• Oka, R., Ohshima, H., & Kusumi, T. (2019). Development and validation of an item set of simile interpretations for metaphor research [In Japanese with English abstract]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.90.17236
   Google Scholar
• Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Roncero, C., & de Almeida, R. G. (2015). Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0502-y
   Google Scholar
• Roncero, C., De Almeida, R. G., Martin, D. C., & De Caro, M. (2016). Aptness predicts metaphor preference in the lab and on the internet. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1116908
   Google Scholar
• Roncero, C., Kennedy, J. M., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193815
   Google Scholar
• Schraw, G., Trathen, W., Reynolds, R. E., & Lapan, R. T. (1988). Preferences for idioms: Restrictions due to lexicalization and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067227
   Google Scholar
• Williams-Whitney, D., Mio, J., & Whitney, P. (1992). Metaphor production in creative writing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067527
   Google Scholar