Literal Bases for Metaphor and Simile

A literal base theory of figurative language holds that figurative claims are modeled on literal forms of expression. They use surface features of literal forms but relax their constraints. We test this theory on metaphors ("Rumors are weeds") and similes ("Rumors are like weeds"), which have forms of literal categorization and similarity claims, respectively. Consistent with the literal base theory, we report the metaphor form is preferred over the simile form when the similarity between the topic (rumors) and the vehicle (weeds) is quite high. Indeed, similarity was found to be more important than familiarity, another potential factor that might affect preference for one form or the other. Our explanation is that in literal language, the categorical form ("That is an apple") is used when there many common properties, whereas the similarity form ("That is like an apple") is used when there are few common properties.

[1]  F. Hill.  Figuratively Speaking , 1958 .

[2]  W. Kintsch,et al.  The representation of meaning in memory , 1974 .

[3]  M. Black.  More about metaphor , 1977 .

[4]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[5]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[6]  A. Ortony.  Beyond Literal Similarity , 1979 .

[7]  T. Brown.  Metaphor and Thought , 1981 .

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

[9]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Ad hoc categories , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Mary K. Camac,et al.  Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them , 1984 .

[11]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[12]  Kim Sterelny,et al.  Language And Reality , 1987 .

[13]  Marcelo Dascal,et al.  Defending Literal Meaning , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  How Context Makes Metaphor Comprehension Seem 'Special' , 1989 .

[15]  L. Rips.  Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

[16]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

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

[18]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity Involving Attributes and Relations: Judgments of Similarity and Difference Are Not Inverses , 1990 .

[19]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Interpreting and evaluating metaphors , 1991 .

[20]  Hilary Kornblith,et al.  Inductive Inference and Its Natural Ground: An Essay in Naturalistic Epistemology , 1993 .

[21]  George A. Miller,et al.  Metaphor and Thought: Images and models, similes and metaphors , 1993 .

[22]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[23]  Metaphor and Thought: Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor , 1993 .

[24]  R. Kreuz,et al.  Why Do People Use Figurative Language? , 1994 .

[25]  J. Mahon.  The Poetics of Mind , 1996 .

[26]  Giambattista Vico.  The Art of Rhetoric , 1996 .

[27]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[28]  A. Katz,et al.  The availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs , 1997 .

[29]  E. Wisniewski.  When concepts combine , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  J. Kennedy,et al.  Form symbolism, analogy, and metaphor , 1997 .

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

[32]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The analogical mind. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[33]  A. Becker.  Emergent and Common Features Influence Metaphor Interpretation , 1997 .

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

[35]  D. Chiappe.  Similarity, Relevance, and the Comparison Process , 1998 .

[36]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Conceptual Combinations: The Role of Similarity , 1998 .

[37]  J. Kennedy,et al.  What Makes a Metaphor Stronger Than a Simile , 1999 .

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

[39]  Todd R. Ferretti,et al.  Discourse Factors That Influence Online Reading of Metaphor and Irony , 2000 .

[40]  D. Gentner,et al.  Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  B. Indurkhya,et al.  Emergence of Features in Metaphor Comprehension , 2000 .

[42]  Dan Chiappe,et al.  Metaphor, Modularity, and the Evolution of Conceptual Integration , 2000 .

[43]  J M Kennedy,et al.  Are Metaphors Elliptical Similes? , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[44]  M. Pickering,et al.  Obtaining a Figurative Interpretation of a Word: Support for Underspecification , 2001 .

[45]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  The Role of Suppression and Enhancement in Understanding Metaphors. , 2001, Journal of memory and language.

[46]  A. Katz,et al.  Moment-By-Moment Reading of Proverbs in Literal and Nonliteral Contexts , 2001 .