The psycholinguistics of metaphor

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 92-96

  Glucksberg, Sam ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; PRISONS; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY;

PSYCHOLINGUISTICS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ALGORITHM; APTITUDE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONVERSATION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; LITERATURE; READING; REVIEW;

EID: 0037314214     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Glucksberg S., Keysar B. How metaphors work. Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edn:1993;401-424 Cambridge University Press.
2. Kittay E.V. Metaphor: It's Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. 1987;Oxford University Press.
3. Miller G.A. Images and models, similes and metaphors. Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 1979;202-253 Cambridge University Press.
4. Searle J. Metaphor. Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 1979;92-123 Cambridge University Press.
5. Stern J. Metaphor in Context. 2000;MIT Press.
6. Way E.C. Knowledge Representation and Metaphor. 1991;Kluwer Academic.
7. Aristotle. Poetics (Transl. Malcolm Heath). 1996;Penguin Books.
8. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Cole P., Morgan J. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. Vol. 3:1975;41-58 Academic Press.
9. Goodman N. Problems and Projects. 1972;Bobbs-Merril, New York.
10. Blasko D., Connine C.M. Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 19:1993;295-308.
11. Cacciari C., Tabossi P. The comprehension of idioms. J. Mem. Lang. 27:1988;668-683.
12. Gibbs R.W. Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cogn. Sci. 8:1984;275-304.
13. Giora, R. (2003) On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language, Oxford University Press (in press).
14. Keysar B. On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. J. Mem. Lang. 28:1989;375-385.
15. McElree B., Nordlie J. Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in parallel. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 6:1999;486-494.
16. Pynte J., et al. The time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain Lang. 55:1996;293-316.
17. Rumelhart D. Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edn:1993;78-90 Cambridge University Press.
18. Gentner D., et al. Metaphor is like analogy. Gentner D., et al. The Analogical Mind. 2001;199-253 MIT Press.
19. Wolff P., Gentner D. Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26:2000;529-541.
20. Glucksberg S. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. 2001;Oxford University Press.
21. Gibbs R.W., et al. Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Mem. Cogn. 17:1989;58-68.
22. Gibbs R.W., et al. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. J. Mem. Lang. 28:1989;576-593.
23. McGlone M.S., et al. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Disc. Proc. 17:1994;167-190.
24. Giora R. On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. J. Pragmat. 31:1999;919-929.
25. Tartter V.C., et al. Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain Lang. 80:2002;459-488.
26. Harris R. Comprehension of metaphors: a test of the two-stage processing model. Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 8:1976;312-314.
27. Fodor J.A. The Modularity of Mind. 1983;MIT Press/Bradford Books.
28. Miller G.A., Johnson-Laird P. Language and Perception. 1976;Harvard University Press.
29. Gildea P., Glucksberg S. On understanding metaphor: the role of context. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22:1983;577-590.
30. Glucksberg S., et al. On understanding nonliteral speech: can people ignore metaphors? J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 21:1982;85-98.
31. Wolff P., Gentner D. Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26:2000;529-541.
32. Gernsbacher M.A., et al. The role of suppression in understanding metaphors. J. Mem. Lang. 45:2001;433-450.
33. Glucksberg S., Keysar B. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychol. Rev. 97:1990;3-18.
34. Glucksberg S., et al. Inhibition of the literal: filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Met. Symb. Act. 16:2001;277-294.
35. Brown R. Words and Things. 1958;The Free Press, New York.
36. Newport E.L., Bellugi U. Linguistic expressions of category levels in a visual-gesture language: a flower is a flower is a flower. Rosch E., Lloyd B.B. Cognition and Categorization. 1978;49-71 Erlbaum.
37. Trager G.L. 'Cottonwood-Tree': A south-western linguistic trait. Int. J. Am.Linguist. 9:1936;117-118.
38. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cogn. Linguist. 8:1997;183-206.
39. Gentner D., Bowdle B.F. Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Met. Symb. Act. 16:2001;223-247.
40. Kintsch W., Bowles A.R. Metaphor comprehension: what makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Met. Symb. Act. 17:2002;249-262.
41. Kintsch W. Metaphor comprehension: a computational theory. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 7:2000;257-266.
42. Glucksberg S., et al. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 36:1997;50-67.
43. Johnson A.T. Comprehension of metaphors and similes: a reaction time study. Met. Symb. Act. 11:1996;145-159.
44. Black M. Models and Metaphors. 1962;Cornell University Press.
45. Black M. More about metaphor. Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 1979;19-43 Cambridge University Press.
46. Zharikov S.S., Gentner D. Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? Gray W.D., Schunn C.D. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 2002;976-981 George Mason University, Fairrax, Va.
47. McGlone M.S., Manfredi D. Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Mem. Cogn. 29:2001;1209-1219.
48. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 3rd Edn:1992;Houghton Mifflin, Boston.