Figuring out the figurative: Individual differences in literary metaphor comprehension

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2007, Vol. 40 (3), str. 399-415 UDC 159.953/.955.072-057.874 FIGURING OUT THE FIGURATIVE: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN LITERARY METAPHOR COMPREHENSION1 Ana Altaras Dimitrijević2 Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade Marija Tadić Strategic Marketing, Belgrade This paper explores the cognitive and affective-conative correlates of metaphor comprehension. We first introduce the concept of metaphor by describing its essential features and functions. Then, we give a short review of key findings derived from cognitive and developmental studies of metaphor comprehension. Finally, we discuss individual differences in metaphoric skill and sensitivity and present the results of an empirical investigation in which we sought to determine the relationship between literary metaphor comprehension, the subjective experience of metaphors and the readers’ verbal intelligence and personality traits. On the basis of our research findings, it is argued that metaphoric ability represents a central facet of intelligence and that the Test of Literary Metaphor Comprehension designed in our study may be viewed as a valid measure of verbal ability. Key words: metaphor comprehension, individual differences, verbal intelligence, personality traits (Big Five) 1 Preparation of this paper was supported by the Ministry of Science and Environment Protection, Grant 149018D. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the XXIII. International Literature and Psychology Conference, Helsinki, Finland. 2 Author’s address: Ana Altaras Dimitrijević i MarijaTadić INTRODUCTION The omnipresence and omnipotence of metaphors In a world where words have only literal meanings A is A, and B is B. But we are not constrained to such a world; rather, we are constantly employing our uniquely human ability to cross the boundaries of the factual and to deal with statements that are “contrary to fact, yet that are on some level true and authentic” (Winner, 1988, p. 2). In other words, we lead a parallel existence in an ever-stretching world of figurative language, where it can sometimes rightly be stated that A is B. It is exactly this juxtaposition of concepts stemming from quite divergent domains but being linked by a certain similarity, that is at the root of a metaphoric utterance. Regardless of its grammatical form, a metaphor can be decomposed into the following basic components: the topic/target, i.e. the subject of the metaphor; the vehicle/base/source, i.e. the means by which the speaker indirectly refers to the topic; and the ground, i.e. the attributes shared by topic and vehicle. All metaphors rest on the relation of similarity, but to define them, “we need also to distinguish between literal and metaphoric similarity” (Winner, 1988, p. 19; italics ours). According to Ortony (1979, in Winner, 1988), the latter is characterized by a marked salience imbalance, whereby the properties shared are of high salience to the vehicle and of low salience to the topic. Furthermore, an imbalance exists in the familiarity and systematicity of the domains from which topic and vehicle are drawn, in that the vehicle is taken from a domain that is more familiar, more concrete and more structured than that of the topic (Gentner et al., 2001). Thus, a defining feature of metaphors is their asymmetry or directionality, and hence their nonreversibility. Why should this feature be so important? It is from the salience, information and systematicity imbalance that metaphors derive their descriptive and explanatory power. As Winner explains: “A metaphor invites us to view the topic as the vehicle. Because […] what is shared is more salient to the vehicle, the result is that we notice properties of the topic that ordinarily go unnoted” (1988, p. 19; italics in the original). In other words, by going along and viewing the topic through the lens of the vehicle, we gain a new, better structured or more profound understanding of the concept in question. It should be clear from here that a metaphor is more than a decorative aspect of language, more than a substitute for a literal term, and more than a simple comparison between topic and vehicle; it is to be acknowledged as a powerful “cognitive tool” – one that helps us get hold of and express complex and abstract ideas, and even serves to reshuffle or create new pathways of categorization (Winner, 1988). To be quite in line with the topic, one could say that we sail the sea of concepts carried by waves of metaphors. Contemporary researchers of metaphor generally espouse the idea that language is in its bones metaphorical and that metaphor represents a vital organ of human cog400 Figuring Out The Figurative: Individual Differences in Literary Metaphor Comprehension nition (Gibbs et al., 1997; Klikovac, 2004; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Winner, 1988). Without the ability to think in terms of metaphors, the world around, as well as within us, would be only partially discerned and partially available (hence, also partially appreciated). So, the important question arises: how do we understand metaphors? Studies of metaphor comprehension According to Winner, “metaphor comprehension is an asymmetrically interactive process by which we come to see the topic as the vehicle, and in which the topic influences which aspects of the vehicle apply to the topic” (1988, p. 32). How exactly does this work? And does it work equally well for children as for adults? Equally well for people of different ability levels and personality profiles? Cognitive studies. The first question is addressed by cognitive-psychological studies delving into the mechanisms of metaphor comprehension. These studies have provided two major accounts of how metaphors are processed (Gentner & Bowdle, 2002). The first is the analogy model or comparison approach proposed by Gentner and colleagues, who argue that the same structure-mapping processes used to explain analogy also apply to metaphor processing. The first stage in metaphor comprehension is a symmetrical (role-neutral) alignment process, in which topic/target and vehicle are compared and a common schema is derived from the comparison. This stage is followed by a directional (role-specific) process of inference-projection from the more concrete and familiar vehicle to the topic. According to this model, metaphor comprehension is to be conceived of as a two-stage “comparison→mapping” process, where “alignment highlights parallel structure […], and inference-projection creates new knowledge in the target (Gentner et al., 2001, pp. 10-11). The second approach, taken by Glucksberg and colleagues, is the (attributive) categorization approach. The idea behind this theory is that metaphors are basically class-inclusion statements asserting that the topic is a member of the category of which the vehicle is the prototypical member. Because the target is not literally a subordinate concept of the vehicle, the first step in metaphor comprehension is to (...truncated)