Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension

Cognitive Science

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1456-1488

  Wolff, Phillip ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Career of metaphor; Embodied metaphor; Metaphor; Structural alignment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; LANGUAGE TEST; LINGUISTICS; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; RECALL; RECOGNITION;

ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; LANGUAGE TESTS; MENTAL RECALL; METAPHOR; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 80055111039     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Aristotle (1932). Rhetoric. In L. Cooper (Trans.), The rhetoric of Aristotle. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Abstraction as dynamic interpretation in perceptual symbol systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories (pp. 389-431). Carnegie Symposium Series. Majwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
4. Bierwisch, M. (1996). How much space gets into language? In P. Bloom & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and space. Language, speech, and communication (pp. 3-35). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
5. Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and symbolic activity, 3, 21-36.
6. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-27.
7. Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185-188.
8. Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193-216.
9. Brysbaert, M., Bovens, N., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1989). Turbo Pascal timing routines for the IBM microcomputer family. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21, 73-83.
10. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Camac, M. K., & Glucksberg, S. (1984). Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 443-455.
12. Chen, E., Widick, P., & Chatterjee, A. (2008). Functional-anatomical organization of predicate metaphor processing. Brain and Language, 107, 194-202.
13. Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 249-276.
14. Cienki, A., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. (2008, November). The role of human scale, embodied metaphors/blends in speech and gestures of entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the 9th Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Cleveland.
15. Desai, R. H., Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Mano, Q. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2011). The neural career of sensorimotor metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2376-2386.
16. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: An algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
17. Fischler, I., & Goodman, G. O. (1978). Latency of associative activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 455-470.
18. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.
19. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
20. Forbus, K. D., & Oblinger, D. (1990). Making SME greedy and pragmatic. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 61-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59, 47-59.
22. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(34), 223-247.
23. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199-253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 307-358). New York: Academic Press.
25. Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space→time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 537-565.
26. Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2005). Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman & P. W. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab (pp. 151-175). Washington, DC: APA.
27. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure-mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
28. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331-355.
29. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 295-342). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1189-1210.
32. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183-20.
33. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
34. Giora, R. (2007). Is metaphor special? Brain and Language, 100, 111-114.
35. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 85-96.
36. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
37. Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50-67.
38. Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 3-28.
39. Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (1996). Language history, language change and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42. Joordens, S., & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1083-1105.
43. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 275-385.
44. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
46. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
47. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
49. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
50. Litt, T. (1989, May). For Borges. Oxford Magazine.
51. Love, B. C., Rouder, J. N., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1999). A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 291-316.
52. Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(3), 216-228. Special Issue on Analogies-Integrating Cognitive Abilities.
53. Malgady, R. G., & Johnson, M. G. (1976). Modifiers in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 43-52.
54. Markman, A. B. (1997). Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science, 21, 373-418.
55. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignability on memory storage. Psychological Science, 8(5), 363-367.
56. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501-538.
57. McElree, B., & Nordlie, J. (1999). Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 486-494.
58. McGlone, M. S., & Harding, J. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1211-1223.
59. McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (2001). Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1209-1219.
60. Meyer, D., & Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
61. Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (1st ed., pp. 202-250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62. Minsky, M. (1990). Logical versus analogical, or symbolic versus connectionist, or neat versus scruffy. In P. H. Winston & S. A. Shellard (Eds.), Artificial intelligence at MIT, expanding frontiers vol. 1 (pp. 218-243). New York: MIT Press.
63. Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173-204.
64. Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1003-1019.
65. Norman, D. A., Rumelhart, D. E., & the LNR Research Group (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.
66. Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161-180.
67. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
68. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358, 534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339-1362.
69. Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973a). A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 1-28.
70. Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973b). A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 5(1), 1-28.
71. Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18(6), 1191-1210.
72. Shen, Y. (1989). Symmetric and asymmetric comparisons. Poetics, 18, 517-536.
73. Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213-241.
74. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27-55.
75. Traugott, E. C. (1978). On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol 3 word structure (pp. 369-400). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
76. Turner, M. (1987). Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, and criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
77. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84(4), 327-352.
78. Veale, T. (2003). Systematicity and the lexicon in creative metaphor. In J. Barnden, S. Glasbey, M. Lee & A. Wallington (Eds), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Figurative Language and the Lexicon (Vol 14, pp. 28-35). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
79. Way, E. C. (1991). Knowledge representation and metaphor. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
80. Weiskopf, D. A. (in press). Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41(3), 294-304.
81. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.
82. Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721-731.
83. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 167-183.
84. Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238.
85. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 529-541.
86. Wu, D., Waller, S., & Chatterjee, A. (2007). The functional neuroanatomy of thematic role and locative relational knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1542-1555.
87. Zharikov, S., & Gentner, D. (2002). Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 976-981). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.