Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Camac and Glucksberg reported there was no priming effect between constituent terms of a metaphor and argued that there was no prior similarity or association between the constituents. However, their study had several limitations. An important one was that they neglected the asymmetry of metaphor constituent terms. The purpose of this study is to replicate their experiment under the condition in which one of the constituents preceded the other. The experiment was conducted with Japanese participants using Japanese metaphoric sentences as stimuli. The results showed that the decision was facilitated if the vehicle served as prime and the topic served as target. In contrast, if the topic preceded the vehicle, no priming effect was found. These results are discussed in terms of the class inclusion model proposed earlier by Glucksberg and Keysar.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anzai

Kamioka

(1986) Ruisui to hiyu [Analogy and metaphor]. Jidou-shinrigaku no shinpo, 25, 53–78.

Bangai

(1994) Retorika: Hiyu hyougen jiten [Rhetorica: Figurative expression dictionary]. Tokyo: Hakusui-sha.

Becker

A. H.

(1997) Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 12, 243–359.

Camac

M. K.

Glucksberg

(1984) Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 443–455.

Gentner

Wolff

(1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331–355.

Gibbs

R. W.

(1994) The poetics of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.

Glucksberg

Keysar

(1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18.

Glucksberg

McGlone

M. S.

Manfredi

(1997) Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50–67.

Hakoda

Egusa

Goryou

(1986) Puraimingu kouka to imi kankei [Priming effects and semantic relations]. Nihon-Shinrigakkai happyou ronbunsbu, 50, 205.

10.

Hoffman

R. R.

Kemper

(1987) What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor comprehension? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 149–186.

11.

Hubbel

J. A.

O'Boyle

M. W.

(1995) The effects of metaphorical and literal comprehension processes on lexical decision latency of sentence components. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 269–287.

12.

Kusumi

(1994) Hiyu rikai ni okeru shudai no imi henka: Kousei-go kan no sougo-sayou no kentou [Semantic change of topic in metaphor comprehension: Interaction of constituent words]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 65, 197–205.

13.

Malgady

R. G.

Johnson

M. G.

(1976) Modifiers in metaphor: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 43–52.

14.

Nakamura

(1977) Hiyu hyougen jiten [Metaphorical expression dictionary]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.

15.

Neely

J. H.

(1977) Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.

16.

Nueckeles

Janetzko

(1997) The role of semantic similarity in the comprehension of metapbor. In Shafto

M. G.

Langley

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. London: Erlbaum. Pp. 578–583.

17.

Ortony

(1979) Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161–180.

Semantic Priming Effect of Metaphor Constituent Terms

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References