Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Aptness and beauty in metaphor

  • MARGUERITE MCQUIRE (a1), LAUREN MCCOLLUM (a2) and ANJAN CHATTERJEE (a3)
Abstract

Metaphors are comparisons that link dissimilar conceptual domains. We hypothesized that the aptness of a metaphor is linked to the reader’s experience of beauty, and that age and expertise influence these aesthetic judgments. We had young adults, literary experts, and elderly adults rate metaphors for beauty or aptness. Experimental materials consisted of single-sentence novel metaphors whose familiarity, figurativeness, imageability, interpretability, and overall valence ratings were known. Results suggest that beauty and aptness of metaphors are linked for elderly adults but are orthogonal for young adults and literary experts. Elderly participants seem to conflate emotional content with aptness. Young adults are most swayed by a perceived feeling of familiarity when rating for aptness, but not for beauty. Literary experts are relatively unaffected by the psycholinguistic variables, suggesting an emotionally distanced approach to these sentences. Individual differences in literary training and life experience have varying effects on the aesthetic experience of metaphor in regard to beauty and aptness.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Marguerite McQuire, Department of Neurology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut Street B-51, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6241; tel: (857) 928-3234; e-mail: mcquire@mail.med.upenn.edu
Footnotes
Hide All
*

This research was supported by a National Institute of Health grant (R01-DC012511) awarded to Anjan Chatterjee, a National Institute of Health training grant (T32AG000255-16). The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390412.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2013). lme4: linear mixed-effects modeling using S4 classes R package [Computer Software] . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; online: <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4> (R package version 0.999999–2).
Bergen, B., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733764.
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Old proverbs in new skins–an fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). When we like what we know–a parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and Language, 124(1), 18.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The historical genesis of a pure aesthetic. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46, 201210.
Cardillo, E. R., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Stimulus design is an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 651664.
Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Stimulus needs are a moving target: 240 additional matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 113.
Chatterjee, A. (2014). Scientific aesthetics: three steps forward. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 465467.
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 370375.
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668676.
Coates, D. (2002). Watches tell more than time. Princeton Junction, NJ: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547577.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 331355.
Gerger, G. N. (2010). Affective and cognitive aspects of aesthetic evaluations in design, art, faces and abstract patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni Wien.
Giora, R. (2014). Literal versus nonliteral language: novelty matters. In Holtgraves, T. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 330347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115141.
Ianni, G. R., Cardillo, E. R., McQuire, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2014). Flying under the radar: figurative language impairments in focal lesion patients. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 871.
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.
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110124.
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 1832.
Katz, A. (1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences. Journal of Memory & Language, 28(4), 486499.
Katz, A., 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), 191214.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489508.
Leder, H., Gerger, G., Brieber, D., & Schwarz, N. (2014). What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion, 28(6), 11371147.
Mares, M. L., Oliver, M. B., & Cantor, J. (2008). Age differences in adults’ emotional motivations for exposure to films. Media Psychology, 11(4), 488511.
R Development Core Team. (2013). RA Lang Environ Stat Comput, 55, 275286. Chicago.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 4548.
Reinsch, N. L. Jr. (1971). An investigation of the effects of the metaphor and simile in persuasive discourse. Speech Monographs, 38(2), 142145.
Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., Cardillo, E. R., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Beyond laterality: a critical assessment of research on the neural basis of metaphor. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16(1), 15.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382419.
Troyer, M., Curley, L. B., Miller, L. E., Saygin, A. P., & Bergen, B. K. (2014). Action verbs are processed differently in metaphorical and literal sentences depending on the semantic match of visual primes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 892.
Yonelinas, A. P., Aly, M., Wang, W. C., & Koen, J. D. (2010). Recollection and familiarity: examining controversial assumptions and new directions. Hippocampus, 20(11), 11781194.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed