Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.

Abstract

A cross-modal priming paradigm was used to examine the comprehension of metaphors varying in familiarity and aptness. In Experiments 1 and 2 high-familiar metaphors showed availability of the figurative meaning, but low-familiar (LF) metaphors did not. In Experiment 3, only LF metaphors that had been rated highly apt showed evidence of figurative activation. Experiment 4 showed evidence of figurative activation for most LF and moderate-apt metaphors. The locus of activation was investigated in Experiment 5 in which the individual words of the metaphor (topic and vehicle) served as primes. Neither topic nor vehicle showed evidence of priming the metaphor target, suggesting that activation of the metaphorical target in Experiments 1-4 was not caused by lexical activation of the words within the metaphors, but rather was due to activation of emergent properties of the metaphorical phrase.

Self-Reflection, Insight, and Individual Differences in Various Language Tasks

“…Compared with the average lexical decision time and accuracy rate reported in the literature (e.g., Blasko & Connine, 1993;Swinney, Love, Walenski, & Smith, 2007), the participants' performances on the lexical decision task, including speed (M = 609, SD = 124) and accuracy (M = 97%, SD = 3%), were comparable to reports by studies using the priming approach, which indicates their attentiveness to the task. Participants' responses to the recognition task were categorized as hits or false alarms.…”

Metaphor and the Space Structuring Model

“…For example, using a word fragment completion task, Giora and Fein (1999) found that both literal and metaphoric meanings were activated in the comprehension of familiar metaphors. Similarly, using the cross-modal priming technique, Blasko and Connine (1993) found priming for the literal as well as the metaphoric meanings in familiar metaphors. For unfamiliar metaphors, they found priming only for the literal meanings of their stimuli.…”

“…For instance, familiarity, one such variable, is a determinant of processing difficulty for literal and nonliteral language alike (Gernsbacher, 1984). In a cross-modal priming study, Blasko and Connine (1993) showed that the familiarity of a metaphor affected reaction times for words related to its metaphorical meaning. In an eye-tracking study, Blasko and Briihl (1997) found that gaze durations for metaphorical expressions decreased as both a function of familiarity and a function of contextual support.…”

The Role of Suppression and Enhancement in Understanding Metaphors☆

“…This means that the process of metaphor understanding makes use of the basic-level meaning of shark, and, therefore, that concept should be activated in memory. Indeed, Blasko and Connine (1993) provided evidence for the activation of the literal meaning of metaphor vehicles as people hear metaphorical sentences. Using a cross-modal priming paradigm, they demonstrated that immediately following the vehicle of the metaphor, hard work is a ladder, the concept rungs was activated.…”