1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study focuses on the emotional aesthetic appreciation of figurative language, a dimension which has often been neglected in experimental psycholinguistics. Our goal was to demonstrate that non-conventional figurative utterances are evaluated as more aesthetically pleasing although they are cognitively more demanding than conventional rhetorical figures. This hypothesis was tested for three main types of figurative language (metaphors, irony and idioms) in three separate surveys. Participants assessed utterances by means of a questionnaire which comprised several semantic differential items. The postulated covariation of non-conventionality and cognitive effort as well as of non-conventionality and aesthetics could be clearly established for metaphors and for irony. For idioms we could only partially provide this evidence. However, in a combined sample for all figurative language forms (compiled from the three studies) the main hypothesis was again confirmed. Thus, the results demonstrate that non-conventional variants of figurative language must be considered as the core of figurative aesthetics. Furthermore, our exploratory data gave evidence of an aesthetic paradox: the cognitive costs of understanding conventional figurative language reduce aesthetic pleasure, while in the case of non-conventional rhetoric figures the enhanced cognitive effort is accompanied by an increase in aesthetic pleasure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.04wim
2016-10-14
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aiken, L.S. , & West, S.G
    (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer, D.J. , & Curran, P.J
    (2005) Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlyne, D.E
    (Ed.) (1974) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blasko, D.G. , & Connine, C.M
    (1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.2.295
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bohrn, I.C. , Altmann, U. , Lubrich, O. , Menninghaus, W. , & Jacobs, A.M
    (2012) Old proverbs in new skins - an FMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 204. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowdle, B.F. , & Gentner, D
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brisard, F. , Frisson, S. , & Sandra, D
    (2001) Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Journal of Pragmatics16(1-2), 87–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brône, G. , & Coulson, S
    (2010) Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236. doi: 10.1080/01638530902959919
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959919 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burgers, C. , van Mulken, M. , & Schellens, P.J
    (2012) Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, C.-T. , & Yen, C.-T
    (2013) Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 80–94. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2012.749090
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.749090 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chiappe, D.L. , Kennedy, J.M. , & Chiappe, P
    (2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(03)00003‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Christmann, U. , & Mischo, C
    (2000) The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in contributions to argumentation. Language and Speech, 43(3), 229–259. doi: 10.1177/00238309000430030101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309000430030101 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christmann, U. , Wimmer, L. , & Groeben, N
    (2011) The aesthetic paradox in processing conventional and non-conventional metaphors: A reaction time study. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(2), 199–240. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.2.03chr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.2.03chr [Google Scholar]
  14. Fenner, D.E.W
    (1996) The aesthetic attitude. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, R.W
    (1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275–304. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00046‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Giora, R
    (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2002a) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00045‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00045-5 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002b) Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock , C. Strapparava , & A. Nijholt (Eds.), The April Fools’ Day workshop on computational humour. Proceedings of the twentieth Twente workshop on language technology (pp.11–28). Enschede: University of Twente.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2009) Irony. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Pragmatics encyclopedia (pp.265–267). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Giora, R. , Drucker, A. , Fein, O. , & Mendelson, I
    (2015) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951 [Google Scholar]
  24. Giora, R. , & Fein, O
    (1999) On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00006‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00006-5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kronrod, A. , Elnatan, I. , Shuval, N. , & Zur, A
    (2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3, pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Groeben, N
    (1977) Rezeptionsforschung als empirische Literaturwissenschaft. Paradigma- durch Methodendiskussion [Reception research as empirical study of literature. Discussion of paradigm by discussion of method]. Kronberg: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Groeben, N. , & Scheele, B
    (1986) Produktion und Rezeption von Ironie. Pragmalinguistische Beschreibung und psycholinguistische Erklärungshypothesen [Production and reception of irony. Pragmalinguistic description and psycholinguistic attempts at explanation] (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hayes, A.F
    (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunt, R.A. , & Vipond, D
    (1985) Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy, 14(1), 23–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobs, A.M
    (2015) Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186 [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, P.O. , & Neyman, J
    (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones, L.L. , & Estes, Z
    (2006) Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Katz, A.N
    (1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17–37. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Katz, A.N. , & Ferretti, T.R
    (2001) Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 193–221. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaufer, D.S
    (1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90015‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90015-1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kraft, J
    (1990) Zur Funktion “wörtlicher Bedeutung”: Am Beispiel ästhetischer Reaktionen auf Witze [On the function of “literal meaning“: Using the example of aesthetic responses to jokes] (Unpublished diploma thesis). University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kronrod, A. , & Danziger, S
    (2013) “Wii Will Rock You!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726–739. doi: 10.1086/671998
    https://doi.org/10.1086/671998 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lagerwerf, L
    (2002) Deliberate ambiguity in slogans: Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3(3), 244–260. doi: 10.1075/dd.3.3.07lag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.3.3.07lag [Google Scholar]
  41. Lagerwerf, L. , & Meijers, A
    (2008) Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements: Appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 19–30. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091‑3367370202
    https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370202 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lapp, E
    (1992) Linguistik der Ironie [Linguistics of irony]. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik: Vol. 369. Tübingen: G. Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lundmark, C
    (2006) The creative use of idioms in advertising. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 71–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. McQuarrie, E.F. , & Mick, D.G
    (1996) Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438. doi: 10.1086/209459
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209459 [Google Scholar]
  46. Miall, D.S
    (1992) Response to poetry: Studies of language and structure. In E.F. Nardocchio (Ed.), Reader response: The empirical dimension (pp.153–170). Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Miall, D.S. , & Kuiken, D
    (1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00011‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mukařovský, J
    (1964 [1932) Standard language and poetic language. In P. L.Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp.17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nerlich, B. , & Clarke, D.D
    (2001) Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00132‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00132-0 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pexman, P.M. , Ferretti, T.R. , & Katz, A.N
    (2000) Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–222. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reber, R. , Schwarz, N. , & Winkielman, P
    (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schumacher, R
    (1997) Metapher: Erfassen und Verstehen frischer Metaphern [Metaphor: Conceiving and comprehending fresh metaphors]. Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur: Bd. 75. Tübingen: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schweigert, W
    (1991) The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314. doi: 10.1007/BF01074283
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074283 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schwoebel, J. , Dews, S. , Winner, E. , & Srinivas, K
    (2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 47–61. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864 [Google Scholar]
  55. Searle, J.R
    (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  56. Shklovsky, V
    (1965 [1917]) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis U (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp.3–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. The language and thought series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tourangeau, R. , & Sternberg, R.J
    (1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(82)90016‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90016-6 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Enschot, R. , & Hoeken, H
    (2015) The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials. Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 25–36. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2014.933688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.933688 [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Mulken, M. , Le Pair, R. , & Forceville, C
    (2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418–3430. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030 [Google Scholar]
  61. Van Mulken, M. , van Enschot-van Dijk, R. , & Hoeken, H
    (2005) Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(5), 707–721. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Mulken, M. , van Hooft, A. , & Nederstigt, U
    (2014) Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333–343. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.920283 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Peer, W
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Vorderer, P. , & Roth, F.S
    (2011) How do we entertain ourselves with literary texts?Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 136–143. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.1.14vor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.14vor [Google Scholar]
  65. Weinreich, U
    (1969) Problems in the analysis of idioms. In J. Puhvel (Ed.), Substance and structure of language: Lectures delivered before the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, University of California, Los Angeles, June 17 – August 12, 1966 (pp.23–82). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilson, D. , & Sperber, D
    (2002) Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632. doi: 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wimmer, L
    (2015) Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten [The aesthetic paradox in processing fictional vs. non-fictional texts] (Doctoral thesis, University of Heidelberg, Germany). Retrieved fromarchiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/18232/
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.04wim
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error