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



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): absorption; expression; foregrounding; literariness; 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