Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions

53Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Gibbs (1990) found that metaphoric referential descriptions take longer to read than literal references, in contrast to the usual result that metaphors and literal sentences are about equally easy to comprehend. This study was performed as an investigation of Gibbs's finding. In Experiment 1, subjects received story contexts in which characters clearly shared knowledge relevant to the metaphoric referring term. In Experiment 2, we tried to ensure that the intended referent was very salient by mentioning it in the sentence just prior to the crucial sentence. Neither of these manipulations eliminated the large response time advantage for literal referring expressions. In Experiment 3, the same metaphors were used as sentence predicates rather than as referring expressions: the metaphors were no more difficult to understand than literal paraphrases. Possible explanations for the difficulty of metaphoric references, as opposed to metaphoric predicates, are discussed. © 1993 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Onishi, K. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202744

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free