Abstract

Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? Sergey S. Zharikov ([email protected]) Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, 2029 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208 USA Dedre Gentner ([email protected]) Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, 2029 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208 USA Abstract Figurative expressions in metaphor form (e.g., Marriage is a journey) seem stronger and deeper than expressions in simile form (e.g., Marriage is like a journey). We ran a study to examine the nature of these judgments. Participants read short paragraphs describing either object attributes or relational structure and then made a forced choice of the grammatical form of a figurative expression mentioning the target concept referred to in the passages. The results showed that the metaphor form was chosen more often (1) for expressions with conventional bases, and (2) when figurative statements followed contexts containing relational information. We speculate about a possible linkage between conventionalization and relationality. Introduction Nominal figurative statements can be expressed in two ways – in simile form (X is like Y) and in metaphor form (X is Y). Although the two grammatical forms largely serve the same purpose (showing that one entity is figuratively similar to another), people report that expressions in metaphor form feel more profound and express stronger claims than expressions in simile form. For example, saying Her heart is a stone feels deeper than Her heart is like a stone. Further, several studies (Gibb & Wales, 1990; Bowdle, 1998; Aisenman, 1999) have found that if people are asked to make a choice between an expression in metaphor form or the same expression in simile form, the simile form is chosen more often. It appears that people are more conservative in using metaphors than in using similes. The greater force of the metaphoric form was noted by Glucksberg and Keysar (1990), who proposed that the metaphor form is the basic form of figurative statements and that similes are understood as variants of metaphors. Noting that the grammatical form of metaphors matches that of category inclusion statements, they suggested that metaphors in fact function as category inclusion statements, where the category is an abstraction that can be accessed or created from the metaphor’s base concept. (We will use the terms target and base, respectively, for the X and Y terms, of a figurative expression X is [like] Y.) There has been debate concerning the processing implications of this theory, but for our purposes the key point is Glucksberg and Keysar’s insight that the grammatical form of figurative statements has psychological force, with metaphor being the stronger, more categorical form. This paper examines the reasons for this phenomenon. Two recent theories have proposed different explanations for the simile-metaphor difference. One account singles out the conventionality of the base term; the other, the relationality/attributionality of the metaphor’s interpretation. The first account, the Career of Metaphor hypothesis (Bowdle & Gentner, 1999; Gentner & Bowdle, 2001) suggests that the difference lies in the conventionality of the base term: figuratives with conventional bases are expressed as metaphors, and those with novel bases are expressed as similes. The second account, Aisenman’s (1999) Relational Precedence hypothesis, suggests that the difference is due to the kind of interpretation the expression receives: relational interpretations are stated as metaphors, and attributional interpretations are stated as similes. In their research on metaphor processing, Gentner and Wolff (1999) proposed an important distinction between newly minted figuratives and conventionalized figuratives. According to the Career of Metaphor hypothesis, figuratives with novel bases, such as An encyclopedia is (like) a uranium mine, are processed by comparison between the target and the literal meaning of the base. In contrast, figuratives with conventional bases, such as An encyclopedia is a goldmine, can be processed by alignment with a conventional abstraction (e.g., a source of something valuable) associated with the base term. The key difference between novel and conventional bases is that the representations of conventional bases include a secondary metaphoric meaning along with the original literal meaning. They have become polysemous. In contrast, representations of novel bases contain only a literal meaning. Gentner and Wolff (1997) proposed that conventional metaphoric meanings are created over time as a result of repeated comparisons of different