1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Articulation of an interactive model of literariness calls for separate specification of (a) a text’s perceptible mode of representation, (b) a reader’s mode of engagement with a text so perceived, and (c) the generative (e.g., creative, expressive) effects of the interaction between this mode of representation and mode of reader engagement. We present a model that identifies two aspects of metaphoric textual representation: structured sequences of nominal metaphors and quasi-metaphoric structures with optional metaphoric construal. This model also distinguishes two modes of reader engagement: expressive enactment and integrative comprehension (Kuiken & Douglas, 2017). The generativity of literary reading is located especially within the interplay between expressive enactment and sequences of metaphoric (and quasi-metaphoric) modes of representation. Evidence suggests that readers reporting expressive enactment also report inexpressible realizations and a temporal progression leading through epistemic tensions that comprise “living metaphor” (Ricoeur, 1981). Thus the generativity – and aesthetic effects – of literary reading are found within the departures from conventionality that comprise the emergent meanings of complex metaphoric structures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18004.kui
2019-01-17
2019-09-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aryani, A., Kraxenberger, M., Ullrich, S., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
    (2016) Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 191–204. doi:  10.1037/aca0000033
    https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000033 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachelard, G.
    (1994) The poetics of space. (M. Jolas, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnden, J.
    (2015) Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62. doi:  10.1080/10926488.2015.980692
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980692 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnden, J. A.
    (2016) Communicating flexibly with metaphor: A complex of strengthening, elaboration, replacement, compounding and unrealism. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 442–473. doi:  10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Barron, F.
    (1988) Putting creativity to work. InR. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp.76–98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., & Benedek, M.
    (2017) Brain networks underlying novel metaphor production. Brain and Cognition, 111, 163–170. doi:  10.1016/j.bandc.2016.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker, A. H.
    (1997) Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(4), 243–259. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms1204_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C.
    (2012) Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 480–485. doi:  10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C.
    (2012) Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 273–281. doi:  10.1037/a0027059
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027059 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bertens, J. W.
    (2014) Literary theory: The basics (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Borges, J. L.
    (2000) Labyrinths: Selected stories and other writing (D. A. Yates, Ed.). Harmonsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bornstein, R. F.
    (2011) Toward a process-focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 532–544. doi:  10.1037/a0022402
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022402 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruhn, M.
    (2018) Citation analysis: An empirical approach to professional literary interpretation. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N.
    (2006) On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 1–22. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms2101_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W.
    (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. doi:  10.1037/h0046016
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M.
    (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398. doi:  10.1023/A:1005103211670
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005103211670 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cupchik, G. C.
    (2016) The aesthetics of emotion: Up the down staircase of the mind-body. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139169301
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139169301 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis, P.
    (2013) Reading and the reader (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. DeRewal, T., & Roth, M.
    (2009) John Shade’s duplicate selves: An alternative shadean theory of ‘Pale Fire.’ Nabokov Online Journal, 3, 1–36. Retrieved fromwww.nabokovonline.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23779748/v3_06_roth.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. DeYoung, C. G.
    (2015) Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. InM. L. Cooper & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol.4, pp.369–399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved fromwww.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoung/Pubs/DeYoung_2014_O-I_PPID_handbook.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B.
    (2007) Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. doi:  10.1037/0022‑3514.93.5.880
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 [Google Scholar]
  22. Djikic, M., & Oatley, K.
    (2014) The art in fiction: From indirect communication to changes of the self. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 498–505. doi:  10.1037/a0037999
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037999 [Google Scholar]
  23. Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B.
    (2002) The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 149–156. doi:  10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2 [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E.
    (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. doi:  10.1177/1745691612460685
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2003a) Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication, 19(19), 57–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2003b) The way we think. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fayn, K., Tiliopoulos, N., & MacCann, C.
    (2015) Interest in truth versus beauty: Intellect and Openness reflect different pathways towards interest. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 47–52. doi:  10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.031 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2014) Subcategorisation, not uncertainty, drives the modification effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1283–1294. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2014.911924
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.911924 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gendlin, E.
    (1978) Befindlichkeit: Heidegger and the philosophy of psychology. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(1–3), 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gendlin, E. T.
    (1997) Experiencing and the creation of meaning: A philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1990) The process of understanding literary metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 19(2). doi:  10.1515/jlse.1990.19.2.65
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1990.19.2.65 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Identifying and appreciating poetic metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 31(2). doi:  10.1515/jlse.2002.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2002.011 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibbs, R. W., & Bogdonovich, J.
    (1999) Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 37–54. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms1401_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1401_4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francozo, E.
    (2004) Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189–1210. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  36. Glucksberg, S.
    (2008) How metaphors create categories – quickly. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.67–83). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goatly, A.
    (2011) The language of metaphors (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goodblatt, C., & Glicksohn, J.
    (2017a) Bidirectionality and metaphor: An introduction. Poetics Today, 38(1), 1–14. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑3716189
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716189 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2017b) Discordia Concors and bidirectionality: Embodied cognition in John Donne’s Songs and Sonnets. Poetics Today, 38(1), 163–188. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑3716304
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716304 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M. M., Tan, E. S. H., Bálint, K., & Doicaru, M. M.
    (2017) The handbook of narrative absorption. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.27 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hakemulder, F., & van Peer, W.
    (2015) Empirical stylistics. InV. Sotirova (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to stylistics (pp.189–207). London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heringa, H.
    (2012) A multidominance approach to appositional constructions. Lingua, 122(6), 554–581. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hunt, R., & Vipond, D.
    (1985) Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in reader-oriented theory, criticism, and pedagogy, 14, 23–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Husserl, E.
    (1973) Experience and judgment: Investigations in a genealogy of logic. (L. Landgrebe, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Jacobs, A. M., & Kinder, A.
    (2018) What makes a metaphor literary? Answers from two computational studies. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 85–100. doi:  10.1080/10926488.2018.1434943
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1434943 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Linguistics and poetics. InT. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–377). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1966) Grammatical parallelism and its Russian facet. Language, 42(2), 399. doi:  10.2307/411699
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411699 [Google Scholar]
  49. (1987) Language in literature. (K. Pomorska & S. Rudy, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. James, W.
    (1890/1918) The principles of psychology (Vol.1). New York, NY: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016 [Google Scholar]
  52. Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H.
    (2017) Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 35–59. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑3716215
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716215 [Google Scholar]
  53. Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M.
    (1988) Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(4), 191–214. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G.
    (2016) Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences: Openness, intellect, and creativity. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 249–258. doi:  10.1111/jopy.12156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E.
    (2013) Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. doi:  10.1126/science.1239918
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kintsch, W.
    (2008) How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.129–142). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.009 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kuiken, D., Campbell, P., & Sopčák, P.
    (2012) The Experiencing Questionnaire: Locating exceptional reading moments. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(2), 243–272. doi:  10.1075/ssol.2.2.04kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.2.2.04kui [Google Scholar]
  58. Kuiken, D., & Douglas, S.
    (2017) Forms of absorption that facilitate the aesthetic and explanatory effects of literary reading. InF. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative Absorption (Vol.27, pp.219–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lal.27.03kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.27.03kui [Google Scholar]
  59. Kuiken, D., Miall, D. S., & Sikora, S.
    (2004) Forms of self-implication in literary reading. Poetics Today, 25(2), 171–203. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑25‑2‑171
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-171 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kuiken, D., & Sharma, R.
    (2013) Effects of loss and trauma on sublime disquietude during literary reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(2), 240–265. doi:  10.1075/ssol.3.2.05kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.3.2.05kui [Google Scholar]
  61. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lea, R. B., Rapp, D. N., Elfenbein, A., Mitchel, A. D., & Romine, R. S.
    (2008) Sweet silent thought alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science, 19(7), 709–716. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02146.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02146.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Lehne, M., Engel, P., Rohrmeier, M., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S.
    (2015) Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0124550. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0124550
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124550 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mangan, B.
    (2000) What feeling Is the “feeling of knowing?” Consciousness and Cognition, 9(4), 538–544. doi:  10.1006/ccog.2000.0488
    https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0488 [Google Scholar]
  65. McEwan, I.
    (2008) On Chesil Beach. Toronto, Canada: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Kuehnast, M., & Jacobsen, T.
    (2015) Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PloS One, 10(6). doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0128451
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128451 [Google Scholar]
  67. Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Knoop, C. A.
    (2017) The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics, 63, 47–59. doi:  10.1016/j.poetic.2016.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Merleau-Ponty, M.
    (2012) Phenomenology of perception. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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]
  70. Mukařovský, J.
    (1976) On poetic language. J. Burbank & P. Steiner (Trans.). Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Nabokov, V.
    (1962) Pale fire. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J.
    (2011) Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of Openness to Experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 571–574. doi:  10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  73. Porat, R., & Shen, Y.
    (2015) Imposed metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(2), 77–94. doi:  10.1080/10926488.2015.1016796
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1016796 [Google Scholar]
  74. Ricoeur, P.
    (1981) The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language (R. Czerny, Trans.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sikora, S., Kuiken, D., & Miall, D. S.
    (2011) Expressive reading: A phenomenological study of readers’ experience of Coleridge’s “The rime of the ancient mariner.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 258–268. doi:  10.1037/a0021999
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021999 [Google Scholar]
  76. Silvia, P. J.
    (2010) Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 75–80. doi:  10.1037/a0017081
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017081 [Google Scholar]
  77. Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E.
    (2015) Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384. doi:  10.1037/aca0000028
    https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000028 [Google Scholar]
  78. Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C.
    (2011) On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 208–214. doi:  10.1037/a0021914
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021914 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sopčák, P.
    (2007) ‘Creation from nothing’: A foregrounding study of James Joyce’s drafts for Ulysses. Language and Literature, 16(2), 183–196. doi:  10.1177/0963947007075984
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075984 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (2008) A deflationary account of metaphors. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.84–105). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  81. Steen, G.
    (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]
  82. (2016) Identifying metaphors in language. InE. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp.73–87). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU (Vol.14). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  84. Sternberg, M.
    (2006) Telling in Time (III): Chronology, estrangement, and stories of literary history. Poetics Today, 27(1), 125–235. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑27‑1‑125
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-27-1-125 [Google Scholar]
  85. Terai, A., & Goldstone, R. L.
    (2012) An experimental examination of emergent features in metaphor interpretation using semantic priming effects. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 34 (pp.2399–2404). Retrieved fromhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h50s472
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Thibodeau, P. H., Sikos, L., & Durgin, F. H.
    (2017) Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences. Behavior Research Methods. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑017‑0903‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0903-9 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tourangeau, R., & Rips, L.
    (1991) Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 452–472. doi:  10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90016‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90016-D [Google Scholar]
  88. 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]
  89. van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M.
    (2014) The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797–817. doi:  10.1086/673383
    https://doi.org/10.1086/673383 [Google Scholar]
  90. van Peer, W.
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D.
    (2011) Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456–1488. doi:  10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01194.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18004.kui
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18004.kui
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): absorption , expression , foregrounding , literariness and metaphor
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