Metaphor Aptness and Conventionality: A Processing Fluency Account

Conventionality and aptness are two dimensions of metaphorical sentences thought to play an important role in determining how quick and easy it is to process a metaphor. Conventionality reflects the familiarity of a metaphor whereas aptness reflects the degree to which a metaphor vehicle captures important features of a metaphor topic. In recent years it has become clear that operationalizing these two constructs is not as simple as asking naïve raters for subjective judgments. It has been found that ratings of aptness and conventionality are highly correlated, which has led some researchers to pursue alternative methods for measuring the constructs. Here, in four experiments, we explore the underlying reasons for the high correlation in ratings of aptness and conventionality, and question the construct validity of various methods for measuring the two dimensions. We find that manipulating the processing fluency of a metaphorical sentence by means of familiarization to similar senses of the metaphor (“in vivo conventionalization”) influences ratings of the sentence's aptness. This misattribution may help explain why subjective ratings of aptness and conventionality are highly correlated. In addition, we find other reasons to question the construct validity of conventionality and aptness measures: for instance, we find that conventionality is context dependent and thus not attributable to a metaphor vehicle alone, and we find that ratings of aptness take more into account than they should.

[1]  M. McGlone,et al.  Topic—vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Glucksberg Sam,et al.  On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails , 2006 .

[3]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  In defense of functional independence: Violations of assumptions underlying the process-dissociation procedure? , 1997 .

[4]  Stephen H. Baer.  Mental leaps: Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 265 pp., $24.95, hardcover , 1995 .

[5]  F. Durgin,et al.  Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors , 2008 .

[6]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  An illusion of memory: false recognition influenced by unconscious perception , 1989 .

[7]  S. Glucksberg.  The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought: How metaphors create categories – quickly , 2008 .

[8]  D. Gentner,et al.  Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping , 1991 .

[9]  R. Giora.  Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis , 1997 .

[10]  J. Kennedy.  Metaphor--Its Intellectual Basis , 1990 .

[11]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on the Web as Corpus , 2003, CL.

[12]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[13]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Alignment in the Processing of Metaphor , 1997 .

[14]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  The career of metaphor. , 2005, Psychological review.

[15]  R. Verbrugge,et al.  Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity. , 1990 .

[17]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. , 1988 .

[18]  Lara L. Jones,et al.  Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. , 2005 .

[19]  Sam Glucksberg,et al.  Can Florida Become Like the Next Florida? , 2006, Psychological science.

[20]  Bipin Indurkhya,et al.  Approximate Semantic Transference: A Computational Theory of Metaphors and Analogies , 1987 .

[21]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean , 1999 .

[22]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Property attribution in metaphor comprehension , 1997 .

[23]  Lara L. Jones,et al.  Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks : Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension , 2006 .

[24]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  Recollection and familiarity: Process-dissociation. , 2000 .

[25]  E. Kittay,et al.  Semantic Fields and the Structure of Metaphor , 1981 .

[26]  John M. Kennedy,et al.  Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes , 2003 .

[27]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Are Scientific Analogies Metaphors , 1981 .

[28]  Matthew S. McGlone,et al.  Conceptual Metaphors and Figurative Language Interpretation: Food for Thought? , 1996 .

[29]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  Metaphor is like analogy , 2001 .

[30]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[31]  J M Kennedy,et al.  Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  Glenn D. Blank,et al.  Metaphors in the Lexicon , 1988 .

[33]  D. Gentner,et al.  The analogical mind : perspectives from cognitive science , 2001 .

[34]  John M. Kennedy,et al.  Reversibility, Aptness, and the Conventionality of Metaphors and Similes , 2003 .

[35]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  S. Glucksberg.  Understanding figurative language : from metaphors to idioms , 2001 .

[37]  Dawn G. Blasko,et al.  Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  Allan Paivio,et al.  Norms for 204 Literary and 260 Nonliterary Metaphors on 10 Psychological Dimensions , 1988 .

[39]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation , 2009, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.