Narrative experiences of metaphor
This chapter discusses the impact of narrative contexts on readers’ experiences of metaphor. We
begin by reviewing extant theories of metaphor processing to offer an analysis of contextual effects on readers’
metaphor understanding. Next, we outline a dual process perspective that suggests how readers’ experiences of metaphor
are guided by both intuitive and reflective processes. We suggest that the separate function of those processes may
transform readers’ experiences of metaphor quality. Finally, we explore readers’ individual responses to metaphors as
a product of their accumulation of knowledge through distinct life experiences. Throughout the chapter, we support our
analyses with examples from the Pulitzer Prize winning novel Less (Greer, 2017).
Article outline
- Metaphor processing in narrative contexts
- Dual processes in narrative
- Intuitive judgments in narrative experiences
- Reflective judgments in narrative experiences
- Readers’ distinct narrative experiences
- Conclusions
-
References
References (41)
References
Bambini, V., Canal, P., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M. (2019). Time
course and neurophysiological underpinnings of metaphor in literary
context. Discourse
Processes, 56, 77–97. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The
career of metaphor. Psychological
Review, 112, 193–216. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buckley, C. (2017, July 24). Less
by Andrew Sean Greer [Review of the book Less, A. S. Greer]. New York Times. Retrieved from: [URL]
Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. (2016). A
25-year replication of Katz et al.’s (1988) metaphor norms. Behavioral Research
Methods, 48, 330–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge
activation, integration, and validation during narrative text
comprehension. Discourse
Processes, 51, 26–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2015). Passive
activation and instantiation of inferences during
reading. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch, Jr. (Eds.), Inferences
during
reading (pp. 42–67). New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A
dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological
Review, 125, 270–292. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Donaggio, P., & Monash, P. (1976). Carrie [Motion
picture]. United States: Red Bank Films.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dorst, A. G. (2015). More
of different metaphors in fiction? A quantitative cross-register
comparison. Language and
Literature, 24, 3–22. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T. A., Greene, T. R., & Voss, J. F. (1988). On
the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal
of Memory and
Language, 27, 416–428. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foy, J. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Readers’
responses when characters act on completed goals: Impact of characters’ mental states and readers’ task
focus. Discourse
Processes, 51, 312–332. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2008). Metaphor
as structure mapping. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 110–128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerrig, R. J., & Egidi, G. (2010). The
Bushwhacked Piano and the bushwhacked reader: The willing construction of
disbelief. Style, 44, 189–206.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerrig, R. J., & Healy, A. F. (1983). Dual
processes in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 9, 667–675.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerrig, R. J., & Mumper, M. M. (2017). How
readers’ lives affect narrative experiences. In M. Burke & E. Troscianko (Eds.), Dialogues
Between Literature and
Cognition (239–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerrig, R. J., & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). The
scope of memory-based processing. Discourse
Processes, 39, 225–242. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., (1994). The
poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Gerrig, R. J. (1989). How
context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special.” Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity, 4, 145–158. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How
metaphors create categories – quickly. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding
metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological
Review, 97, 3–18. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grayot, J. D. (2020). Dual
process theories in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics: A critical
review. Review of Philosophy and
Psychology, 11, 105–136. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greer, A. S. (2017). Less. New York: Lee Boudreaux Books/Little, Brown and Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The
effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory &
Cognition, 37, 1001–1013. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor
comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 144, 641–671. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking,
fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laemmle, C., & Whale, J. (1931). Frankenstein.
The man who made a monster [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference
during reading. Psychological
Review, 99, 440–466. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (2015). Cognitive
theories in discourse-processing research. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch, Jr. (Eds.), Inferences
during
reading (pp. 19–41). New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merrill, G., & Rubicam, S. (1986). I
wanna dance with somebody [Recorded by W. Houston]. On Whitney. New York, NY: Arista.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence
threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI_Val model of
comprehension. Discourse
Processes, 53, 326–338. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Gueraud, S. (2010). Accessibility
of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and
Cognition, 36, 979–991.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating
a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Olidort, S. (2017, July 27). Andrew
Sean Greer’s ‘Less’ in need of something more [Review of the book Less,
by A. S. Greer]. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: [URL]
Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Julich, N. (2014). Let’s
talk music: A corpus-based account of musical motion. Metaphor and
Symbol, 29, 298–315. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rataj, K., Przekoracka-Krawcyzk, A., & van der Lubbe, R. H. J. (2018). On
understanding creative language: The late positive complex and novel metaphor
comprehension. Brain
Research, 1678, 231–244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text
processing of domain- related information for individuals with high and low domain
knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal
Behavior, 18, 275–290. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, G. J. (2008). The
paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of
metaphor. Metaphor and
Symbol, 23, 213–241. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thibodeau, P. H., Sikos, L., & Durgin, F. H. (2018). Are
subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric
sentences. Behavior Research
Methods, 50, 759–772. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Gerrig, Richard J.
2024.
Slowing Metaphor Down: Elaborating Deliberate Metaphor Theory
Slowing Metaphor Down: Elaborating Deliberate Metaphor Theory
, by Gerard J., Steen Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2023, xv, 355 pp., $165 (hardbound), ISBN: 9789027213853, $165 (e-Book), ISBN: 9789027249777. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.26
.
Metaphor and Symbol 39:3
► pp. 217 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.