93
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Number of topic-vehicle shared features influences the aptness of metaphors

ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 819-832 | Received 21 Nov 2021, Accepted 06 Jun 2022, Published online: 16 Jun 2022

References

  • Al-Azary, Hamad, & Katz, Albert N. (2021). Do metaphorical sharks bite? Simulation and abstraction in metaphor processing. Memory & Cognition, 49(3), 557–570. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01109-2
  • Bambini, V., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M. (2014). A dataset of metaphors from the Italian literature: Exploring psycholinguistic variables and the role of context. PloS ONE, 9(9), e105634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105634
  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2
  • Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782
  • Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
  • Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2479
  • 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
  • Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016
  • Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
  • Katz, Albert N., Paivio, Allan, Marschark, Marc, & Clark, James M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(4), 191–214. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1
  • Kusumi, T. (1985). Similarity between constituent words or phrases of metaphors: Effects of feature salience in comprehending metaphor. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 56(5), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.56.269
  • Marschark, Marc, Katz, Albert N., & Paivio, Allan. (1983). Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(1), 17–40. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072712
  • 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
  • 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), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19011/sor.48.1_1
  • Oka, R., & Kusumi, T. (2020). Distinctive features influence perceived metaphor aptness and preference for metaphor use. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1712780
  • Oka, R., & Kusumi, T. (2021). Number of shared topic-vehicle significant features affects speakers’ preference for metaphorical expressions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1876071
  • Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86(3), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.161
  • Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics [Online survey platform]. https://www.qualtrics.com.
  • R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
  • Thibodeau, P. H., Sikos, L., & Durgin, F. H. (2018). Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0903-9
  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.