title: The Role of Suppression and Enhancement in Understanding Metaphors.
abstract: Participants read either a metaphorical prime sentence, such asThat defense lawyer is a shark,or they read a baseline-prime sentence. The baseline-prime sentence was literally meaningful in Experiment 1 (e.g.,That large hammerhead is a shark),nonsensical in Experiment 2 (e.g.,His English notebook is a shark),and unrelated in Experiment 3 (e.g.,That new student is a clown).After reading the prime sentence, participants verified a target property statement. Verification latencies for property statements relevant to the superordinate category (e.g.,Sharks are tenacious)were faster after participants read the metaphor-prime sentence than after they read the baseline-prime sentence, producing an enhancement effect. In contrast, verification latencies for property statements relevant to only the basic-level meaning of the vehicle and not the superordinate (e.g.,Sharks are good swimmers),were slower following the metaphor-versus the baseline-prime sentence, producing a suppression effect. As Glucksberg and Keysar's (1990) class inclusion theory of metaphor predicts, the enhancement effect demonstrates that the vehicle of a metaphor stands for the superordinate category of the vehicle, and the suppression effect demonstrates that the metaphorical vehicle does not stand for its basic-level meaning.
authors.affiliation: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
authors.forename: Morton Ann
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Gernsbacher
authors.affiliation: University of Chicago.
authors.forename: Boaz
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Keysar
authors.affiliation: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
authors.forename: Rachel R W
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Robertson
authors.affiliation: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
authors.forename: Necia K
authors.initials: NK
authors.lastname: Werner
references.citation: Discourse Process. 1997 Jan;23(3):265-304
references.pmid: 25484476
references.citation: Cognition. 1982 May;11(3):203-44
references.pmid: 7199412
references.citation: Verbum (Nancy). 1997;19(1-2):67-84
references.pmid: 30198029
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Mar;17(2):245-62
references.pmid: 1827830
references.citation: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 1997;4(3):175-184
references.pmid: 25285030
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1995 Aug;29(1):24-58
references.pmid: 7641525
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 1995 May;6(3):165-169
references.pmid: 25309047
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Jun;7(2):257-66
references.pmid: 10909133
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 1993 Sep;4(5):294-298
references.pmid: 25309046
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Mar;19(2):295-308
references.pmid: 7681095
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1983 May;11(3):211-27
references.pmid: 6621337
references.citation: Cognition. 1989 Jul;32(2):99-156
references.pmid: 2752708
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2001 Dec;29(8):1209-19
references.pmid: 11913757
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 1991;6(2):81-105
references.pmid: 25425749
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 May;16(3):430-45
references.pmid: 2140402
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1989 Sep;17(5):536-40
references.pmid: 2796738
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1985 Sep;13(5):413-24
references.pmid: 4088051