Authors

1 PhD, Shahid Chamran University

2 Shahid Chamran University

3 Allameh Tabatabaie University

Abstract

Degree of aptness of the nominal metaphor X is a Y or the extent to which the metaphorical statement expresses its specific non-literal meaning and the nature of relationship between aptness and semantic features of topic (X) and vehicle (Y) is the subject that is addressed in this study. Conducting an experiment in which 35 undergraduate students judged degree of relevancy of 10 semantic features of topic and vehicle of nominal metaphors, the researchers of this study sought to find how aptness of a metaphor is related to various meaning aspects of topic and vehicle. The instrument was a test including 20 nominal metaphors, each one followed by 10 semantic features of topic and vehicle. The participants were required to judge the degree of relevancy of each feature on the basis of a Likert scale ranging from 0 (irrelevant) to 3 (completely relevant). The obtained results suggested that several aspects of meaning might simultaneously be in operation throughout metaphor comprehension. However, these aspects are not at the same level; that is, one meaning aspect plays the dominant role, while others play a secondary role. Taking Glucksberg’s class-inclusion view of metaphor comprehension and Gentner’s structure-mapping view and based on the results obtained in the experiment, this article presents a model according to which degree of interpretability and aptness of a nominal metaphor is determined by degree of relevancy of a specific meaning aspect of vehicle.
 

Keywords

Anderson, R. C., & Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem of polysemy.   Cognitive psychology, 7, 167-180.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In M. Hahn, & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of twenty-first annual Conference of cognitive science society (pp. 90-95). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C.M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,295-308.
Cacciari, C., & Gluckesberg, S. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In S. Robertson, W. Zachary, & J. Black (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 447-477). San Diego, CA: Academic press.         
Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of language. Toronto: Thompson publications.
 Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics & phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.  
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithms and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
 Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language. Boston: Thompson publications.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In S. Robertson, W. Zachary, & J. Black (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics  (pp. 411-446). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 Giora, R., (1999). On the priority of salient meaning: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85-98.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond  similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 401-424). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., & McGlone, M.S. (1992). Metaphor understanding and accessing conceptual schema: Reply to Gibbs. Psychological Review, 99, 578-581.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor  comprehension. Journal of Memory and language, 36, 50-67.
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. A., & 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.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol. 16, 277-293.
Glucksbers, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92-96.
Johnson, A.T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and simile: A reaction time study. Metaphor & Symbol, 11, 145-159.
Keysar, B., & Glucksberg, S. (1992). Metaphor and communication. Poetic Today, 13, 633-658.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, G., Kranjec, A., Cardillo, E., & Chatterjee, A. (2009). Beyond laterality: A critical assessment of research on the neural basis of metaphor. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1-5.
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.