1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Scientific Study of Literature
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function metaphor are radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories. Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ ( = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
2019-01-17
2024-10-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C.
    (2008) New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. doi:  10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle (1940) The art of poetry (I. Bywater, Trans.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M.
    (2007) Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research, 1160, 69–81. doi:  10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.034
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.034 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bambini, V., Canal, P., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M.
    (2018) Time course and neurophysiological underpinnings of metaphor in literary context. Discourse Processes. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2017.1401876
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1401876 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2014) Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1(7).
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blank, G.
    (1988) Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(3), 21–36. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Block, C. K., & Baldwin, C. L.
    (2010) Cloze probability and completion norms for 498 sentences: Behavioral and neural validation using event-related potentials. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 665–670. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.3.665
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.665 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Cameron, L.
    (1999) Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. InL. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.3–28). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003) Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A.
    (2012) From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. Neuroimage, 59(4), 3212–3221. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carpenter, P., & Just, M. A.
    (1983) What your eyes do while your mind is reading. InK. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp.275–307). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑583680‑7.50022‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-583680-7.50022-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2005) Politicians & Rhetoric. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave-Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chateau, D., & Jared, D.
    (2000) Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 143–153. doi:  10.3758/BF03211582
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211582 [Google Scholar]
  15. Columbus, G., Sheikh, N. A., Côté-Lecaldare, M., Häuser, K., Baum, S. R., & Titone, D.
    (2015) Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An eye movement study of sentence reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1057. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2014.01057
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01057 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C.
    (2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 958–968. doi:  10.3758/BF03195780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dorst, A. G.
    (2015) More or different metaphors in fiction? A quantitative cross-register comparison. Language and Literature, 24(1), 3–22. doi:  10.1177/0963947014560486
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947014560486 [Google Scholar]
  18. Forgács, B., Bohrn, I., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M. J., Pléh, C., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2012) Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1432–1442. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2015a) 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]
  20. (2015b) 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]
  21. Goatly, A.
    (1997) The language of metaphors. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203210000
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodkind, A., & Bicknell, K.
    (2018) Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality. InProceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2018) (pp.10–18). 10.18653/v1/W18‑0102
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-0102 [Google Scholar]
  23. Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F.
    (2004) Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2004.tb00317.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00317.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Hakemulder, J.
    (2004) Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193–218. doi:  10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hale, J.
    (2001) A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. InProceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (pp.1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.3115/1073336.1073357
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1073336.1073357 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015a) 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]
  27. (2015b) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. InR. M. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use (pp.135–195). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Jacobs, A. M., & Willems, R. M.
    (2017) The fictive brain: Neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Review of General Psychology, Advance online publication. doi:  10.1037/gpr0000106
     https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000106 [Google Scholar]
  30. Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
    (2010) SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.643 [Google Scholar]
  31. Koller, V.
    (2003) Metaphor clusters in business media discourse: A social cognition approach. Diss. Vienna University. www.wuwien.ac.at/inst/english/koller_diss.pdf
  32. Koopman, E. M.
    (2010) Reading the suffering of others: The ethical possibilities of ‘empathic unsettlement’. Journal of Literary Theory, 4(2), 235–251. doi:  10.1515/jlt.2010.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt.2010.015 [Google Scholar]
  33. Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W.
    (2016) Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 56, 35–49. doi:  10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Krennmayr, T., Bowdle, B. F., Mulder, G., & Steen, G. J.
    (2014) Economic competition is like auto racing. Building metaphorical schemas when reading text. Metaphor and the Social World, 4(1), 65–89. doi:  10.1075/msw.4.1.04kre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.4.1.04kre [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuijpers, M. M., Hakemulder, F., Tan, E. S., & Doicaru, M. M.
    (2014) Exploring absorbing reading experiences. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 89–122. doi:  10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuperman, V., Dambacher, M., Nuthmann, A., & Kliegl, R.
    (2010) The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 1838–1857. doi:  10.1080/17470211003602412
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003602412 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L.
    (2009) Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145–155. doi:  10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (pp.202–251). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A.
    (1991) Master Metaphor List. Technical report, University of California, Berkely. Retrieved from: araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
  41. Lakoff, J. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:  10.2307/2529786
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786 [Google Scholar]
  43. Leech, G. N.
    (1966) English in Advertising: A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2008) Language in literature: style and foregrounding. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Luke, S. G., & Henderson, J. M.
    (2016) The influence of content meaningfulness on eye movements across tasks: Evidence from scene viewing and reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 257. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00257
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00257 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mak, H. M. & Willems, R. M.
    (in press) Mental Simulation during Literary Reading: Individual Differences Revealed with Eye-Tracking. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Miall, D., & Kuiken, D.
    (1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization and affect. Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 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.
    (1932/1964) Standard language and poetic language. In: P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp.17–30). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nabokov, V.
    (1996) Verzamelde verhalen 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: De Bezige Bij.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K.
    (2016) Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–450. doi:  10.1037/xlm0000176
     https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000176 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ortony, A.
    (Ed.) (1979) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pasma, T.
    (2011) Metaphor and register variation. The personalisation of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk, Netherlands: Box Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rataj, K.
    (2014) Surfing the brainwaves of metaphor comprehension. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50(1), 55–73. doi:  10.1515/psicl‑2014‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2014-0004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A.
    (1986) Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. doi:  10.3758/BF03197692
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton Jr, C.
    (1989) Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3), SI21–SI49. doi:  10.1080/01690968908406362
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406362 [Google Scholar]
  57. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J.
    (submitted). The role of co-text in the analysis of potentially deliberate metaphor.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (in press). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. To appear inCorpora14(3).
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2018) DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 129–147. doi:  10.1007/s41701‑017‑0026‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7 [Google Scholar]
  60. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Semino, E. & Steen, G. J.
    (2008) Metaphor in literature. InGibbs Jr, R. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp.232–246). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F.
    (1989) Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. doi:  10.2307/747605
     https://doi.org/10.2307/747605 [Google Scholar]
  63. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Harrison, M. R.
    (1995) Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 811. doi:  10.1037/0012‑1649.31.5.811
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.811 [Google Scholar]
  64. 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]
  65. (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]
  66. (2017) Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. doi:  10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tay, D.
    (2013) Metaphor in psychotherapy. A descriptive and prescriptive analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.1 [Google Scholar]
  69. Taylor, W. L.
    (1953) “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Bulletin, 30(4), 415–433. doi:  10.1177/107769905303000401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905303000401 [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Dale Hedendaags Nederlands Online. www.vandale.nl/
     [Google Scholar]
  71. van den Bosch, A., Busser, B., Canisius, S., & Daelemans, W.
    (2007) An efficient memory-based morphosyntactic tagger and parser for Dutch. InP. Dirix, I. Schuurman, V. Vandeghinste, & F. Van Eynde (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp.99–114).
     [Google Scholar]
  72. van den Hoven, E., Hartung, F., Burke, M., & Willems, R. M.
    (2016) Individual differences in sensitivity to style during literary reading: Insights from eye-tracking. Collabra, 2(1): 25, 1–16. doi:  10.1525/collabra.39
     https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.39 [Google Scholar]
  73. van Essen, R.
    (2014) Hier wonen ook mensen. Amsterdam: Atlas Contact.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. van Peer, W.
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zygnier, S.
    (2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. doi:  10.1177/0963947007075985
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075985 [Google Scholar]
  76. Willems, R. M., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2016) Caring about Dostoyevsky: The untapped potential of studying literature. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 243–245. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.009 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
Loading
Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading
Scientific Study of Literature 8, 135 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): deliberate metaphor; eye-movements; literary reading; literature; metaphor processing

Most Cited

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