1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Metaphor frames highlight certain aspects of a target domain and deemphasize others, thereby encouraging specific patterns of inference. A recent series of studies ( Reijnierse, Burgers, Krennmayr, & Steen, 2015 ; Steen, Reijnierse, & Burgers, 2014 ), however, raises questions about the role of metaphor in communication and reasoning by (a) failing to find metaphor framing effects on a series of policy judgments, (b) critiquing the methods that have been used to test for metaphor framing effects, and (c) arguing that current theories of metaphor processing fail to consider the social-pragmatic dimension of metaphor in communication. Here, I reflect on these concerns and present novel analyses of data collected by Steen and colleagues, which reveal metaphor framing effects in these studies but fail to support a prediction of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT): that extended metaphors are more likely to be remembered. DMT attempts to situate metaphor framing effects more intentionally along a social-pragmatic dimension; developing and testing the theory was a primary motivation of the studies conducted by Steen and colleagues. I discuss the implications of these findings and offer a perspective on how DMT can help grow our knowledge of the function of metaphor in a social world.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.7.2.06thi
2017-11-20
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bever, T. G.
    (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and language development, pp.279–362. New York: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Black, M.
    (1962) Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boroditsky, L.
    (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boroditsky, L. , Fuhrman, O. , & McCormick, K.
    (2011) Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently?Cognition, 118(1), 123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowdle, B. F. , & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bransford, J. D. , & Johnson, M. K.
    (1972) Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(72)80006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chun, M. M. , & Turk-Browne, N. B.
    (2007) Interactions between attention and memory. Current opinion in neurobiology, 17(2), 177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H. H.
    (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1996) Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gentner, D.
    (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1996) Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61(3), 309–319. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00723‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00723-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48, 529–562. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40, 45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2015a) Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future?Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015b) Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Glucksberg, S. , & Keysar, B.
    (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological review, 97(1), 3–18. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.97.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hauser, D. J. , & Schwarz, N.
    (2014) The war on prevention bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 66–77. doi: 10.1177/0146167214557006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Howell, D.
    (2012) Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jia, L. , & Smith, E. R.
    (2013) Distance makes the metaphor grow stronger: A psychological distance model of metaphor use. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 492–497. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  21. Keefer, L. A. , Landau, M. J. , Sullivan, D. , & Rothschild, Z. K.
    (2011) Exploring metaphor’s epistemic function: Uncertainty moderates metaphor-consistent priming effects on social perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 657–660. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Keysar, B. , & Bly, B.
    (1995) Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans?Journal of Memory and Language, 34(1), 89–109. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1005
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Keysar, B. , Shen, Y. , Glucksberg, S. , & Horton, W. S.
    (2000) Conventional language: How metaphorical is it?Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 576–593. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2711
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2711 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kövecses, Z.
    (1986) Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A Lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.vii.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.8 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krennmayr, T.
    (2011) Metaphor in newspapers. Amsterdam: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (2008) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Landau, M. J. , Keefer, L. A. , & Rothschild, Z. K.
    (2014) Epistemic motives moderate the effect of metaphoric framing on attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 125–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Landau, M. J. , Sullivan, D. , & Greenberg, J.
    (2009) Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02462.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02462.x [Google Scholar]
  29. McGuire, W. J.
    (2000) Standing on the shoulders of ancients: Consumer research, persuasion, and figurative language. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 109–114. doi: 10.1086/314312
    https://doi.org/10.1086/314312 [Google Scholar]
  30. Menard, S.
    (2002) Applied logistic regression analysis (Vol.106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412983433
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983433 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nash, J. M.
    (2000) “The new science of Alzheimer’s: Racing against time – and one another – researchers close in on the aging brain’s most heartbreaking disorder.” Time Magazine. Retrieved (January 29, 2016) from: content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997452,00.html
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nisbett, R. E. , & Wilson, T. D.
    (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.3.231
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ottati, V. , Rhoads, S. , & Graesser, A. C.
    (1999) The effect of metaphor on processing style in a persuasion task: A motivational resonance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 688–697. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.77.4.688
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.688 [Google Scholar]
  34. Reijnierse, W. G. , Burgers, C. , Krennmayr, T. , & Steen, G. J.
    (2015) How viruses and beasts affect our opinions (or not): The role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245–263. doi: 10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
  35. Robins, S. , & Mayer, R. E.
    (2000) The metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30(1), 57–86. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rumelhart, D. E.
    (1979) Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.71–82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sopory, P. , & Dillard, J. P.
    (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2002.tb00813.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Steen, G. J.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. doi: 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2009) Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  41. (2015) Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  42. Steen, G. J. , Reijnierse, W. G. , & Burgers, C.
    (2014) When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PloS ONE, 9(12), e113536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113536 [Google Scholar]
  43. Thibodeau, P. H.
    (2016) Extended metaphors are the home run of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor & Symbol, 31(2), 53–72. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thibodeau, P. H. , & Boroditsky, L.
    (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS ONE, 8(1), e52961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2015) Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PloS ONE, 10(7), e0133939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133939
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133939 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thibodeau, P. , & Durgin, F. H.
    (2008) Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 521–540. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thibodeau, P.H. , & Durgin, F.H.
    (2011) Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 206–226. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583196
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196 [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E. C.
    (1978) On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In J. H. Greenberg , C. A. Ferguson , & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language: Word structure, Vol.3 (pp.369–400). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.7.2.06thi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.7.2.06thi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): framing , language , metaphor , pragmatics and reasoning
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