Metaphoric reference

When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions

Kristine H. Onishi, Gregory Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)763-772
Number of pages10
JournalMemory & Cognition
Volume21
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1993

Fingerprint

Metaphor
Reaction Time
Metaphoric
Experiment
Referring Expressions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Metaphoric reference : When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. / Onishi, Kristine H.; Murphy, Gregory.

In: Memory & Cognition, Vol. 21, No. 6, 11.1993, p. 763-772.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Onishi, Kristine H. ; Murphy, Gregory. / Metaphoric reference : When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. In: Memory & Cognition. 1993 ; Vol. 21, No. 6. pp. 763-772.
@article{07872389e7754308838d5f5d524d9f93,
title = "Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions",
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.",
author = "Onishi, {Kristine H.} and Gregory Murphy",
year = "1993",
month = "11",
doi = "10.3758/BF03202744",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "763--772",
journal = "Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0090-502X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Metaphoric reference

T2 - When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions

AU - Onishi, Kristine H.

AU - Murphy, Gregory

PY - 1993/11

Y1 - 1993/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027374044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027374044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/BF03202744

DO - 10.3758/BF03202744

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 763

EP - 772

JO - Memory and Cognition

JF - Memory and Cognition

SN - 0090-502X

IS - 6

ER -