Abstract
A number of pictorial devices were compared in order to assess their relative effectiveness in depicting events. Effectiveness, as measured by a rating task, did not seem to be a function of the classification of a device as natural or metaphorical. Rather, it depended on whether a given device highlighted a distinctive aspect of a particular event (running, jumping, or moving), or simply modified the event. This observation was buttressed by the existence in a forced-choice task of a category boundary for depictions of running (pictures with a certain device were seen as running, those without it were not) but not for moving or jumping. Even preschool children displayed some understanding of metaphorical devices. They chose figures with those devices as running faster than the experimental standard. Results are discussed in the context of Kennedy's characterization of pictorial metaphors and Gibson's framework for understanding the relationship between pictorial and environmental information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.