Interpretive Diversity Explains Metaphor–Simile Distinction

A number of properties—aptness, topic-vehicle similarity, vehicle conventionality—have recently been used to explain a metaphorsi-mile distinction. This paper argues that interpretive diversity better explains a metaphor-simile distinction than these properties. Interpretive diversity refers to the semantic richness of the figurative interpretation of a topic-vehicle pair and is determined depending on both the number of features involved in the interpretation and the uniformity of salience distribution of those features. The interpretive diversity view predicts that interpretively more diverse pairs should be easier to comprehend via a categorization process, and thus the preference for and the relative comprehensibility of the metaphor form should be greater. Two experiments demonstrated that, as predicted, interpretive diversity was correlated positively with metaphor preference (Experiment 1) and with the relative comprehensibility of the metaphor form compared to the simile form (Experiment 2). Furthermore, interpretive diversity was found to be more important in explaining metaphor-simile distinction than aptness, similarity, and conventionality.

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

[2]  T. Kusumi,et al.  The effect of repeated presentation and aptness of figurative comparisons on preference for metaphor forms , 2004 .

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

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

[5]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[6]  J. Kennedy,et al.  Literal Bases for Metaphor and Simile , 2001 .

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

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

[9]  Effects of categorical dissimilarity and affective similarity between constituent words on metaphor appreciation , 1987 .

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

[11]  Andrew T. Johnson,et al.  Comprehension of metaphors and Similes: A Reaction Time Study , 1996 .

[12]  S. Glucksberg The psycholinguistics of metaphor , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[14]  Brian M. Friel,et al.  Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete- and abstract-tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse context , 2006 .

[15]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 1999 .

[16]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  A. Utsumi The Role of Feature Emergence in Metaphor Appreciation , 2005 .

[18]  R. Gibbs Embodiment and Cognitive Science: Concepts , 2005 .

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

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

[21]  Akira Utsumi Computational Exploration of Metaphor Comprehension Processes , 2006 .

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

[23]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing , 2001 .

[24]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Metaphor Comprehension: From Comparison to Categorization , 2020, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[25]  N. Mergler,et al.  Metaphor Comprehension: In Search of Literal Truth, Possible Sense, and Metaphoricity , 1990 .

[26]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .

[27]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY EFFECTS IN WORD IDENTIFICATION , 1996 .

[28]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

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

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

[31]  P. Pexman,et al.  Number-of-features effects and semantic processing , 2003, Memory & cognition.

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