Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension

References

• Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 161–189.10.1080/02643299008253441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. W. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1619–1630.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00007-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Tendahl, M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effect in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language, 21(3), 379–403.10.1111/mila.2006.21.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Giora, R. (2006). Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981–1014.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giora, R. (2007). “A good Arab is not a dead Arab—A racist incitement”: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 129–162). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I. (2005). Negation as positivity in disguise. In H. L. Colston & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 233–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H. (2005). Negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39, 81–100.10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115.10.1080/10926488.2013.768510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92–96.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18.10.1037/0033-295X.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.10.1017/CBO9781139173865
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D., & McGlone, M. S. (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. In T. B. Wards, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual metaphors and processes (pp. 326–350). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50–67.10.1006/jmla.1996.2479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol, 16, 277–298.10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
   Google Scholar
• Keil, F. (1986). The acquisition of natural kinds and artifact terms. In W. Demoupoulous & A. Marras (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition: Foundational issues (pp. 133–153). New York City, Stanmore: Ablex, Norwood.
   Google Scholar
• Keysar, B. (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18, 247–269.10.1080/01638539409544895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, M. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23.10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in mind and brain (pp. 211–250). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360–373.10.1037/h0087323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130.10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2007). Conceptual structure. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 217–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F. H., & Poli, J. (1996). The Time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55(3), 293–316.10.1006/brln.1996.0107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., Levy, J. P., Voice, J. K., & Moss, H. E. (1996). Distinctiveness and correlations in the structure of categories: Behavioral data and a connectionist model. Brain and Language, 55, 89–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75, 195–231.10.1006/brln.2000.2353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422–488.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86, 347–365.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00144-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar