Abstract
It has been proposed that “the distinction between metaphor and simple deviance involves the intention... to be metaphorical” (Matthews, 1971, p. 417). This supposition was tested by comparing sentence recall in metaphors rated very low in meaningfulness with similarly rated nonmetaphors and nonmetaphors rated highly meaningful. Two instructional conditions were evaluated, literary source instructions, which intended to communicate that the sentences made sense, and nonliterary instructions, which did not have this intention. Generally, metaphors were learned as well as meaningful nonmetaphors and both were learned better than meaningless nonmetaphors. It was suggested that the comparison stated in metaphors is adequate to communicate intention regardless of a particular instructional set.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bendix, E. H. The data of semantic description. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. On the methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 95–112.
Jenkins, J. J. Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it! American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 785–795.
Loewenberg, I. Identifying metaphors. Foundations of Language, 1975, 12, 315–338.
Marks, L. E., & Miller, G. A. The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 1–5.
Matthews, R. Concerning a “linguistic theory” of metaphor. Foundations of Language, 1971, 7, 413–425.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968, 76(WholeNo. l,Pt.2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dolinsky, R., Zabrucky, K.M. Learning virtually meaningless metaphors under different instructional conditions. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 21, 190–192 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334683
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334683