metaphor comprehension as problem solving

8/10/2019 Metaphor Comprehension as Problem Solving

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/metaphor-comprehension-as-problem-solving 1/22

Metaphor comprehension as problem solving: an online study

of the reading process - 1

Style, Fall, 2002 by Chanita Goodblatt, Joseph Glicksohn

1. Interaction Theory and Problem Solving

A special issue on "Cognitive Approaches to Metaphor" very fittingly calls forth a collaboration beteen a

literary critic and a cognitive psychologist! aking advantage of the uni#ue skills afforded by each discipline, e

have atte$pted to forge an interdisciplinary approach to $etaphor that%%for the literary critic%% concreti&es the

hypothesi&ed cognitive processes involved in reading the poetic te't (e!g!, i$age generation, filling in of "gaps,"

draing of analogies), hile%%for the cognitive psychologist%%provides the co$$entary hich bears on the ider

cultural and literary conte'ts of this te't!

*ur particular convergence of literary criticis$ ith cognitive psychology is to be found in the +nteraction theory

of $etaphor! hile this theory of $etaphor is not a do$inant one ithin hich e$pirical research is currently

being conducted, (2) it has the potential, as the literary critic +na -ier$ann has stated, for providing "a sound

basis for the e$pirical study of $etaphor in literature and specifically in poetic te'ts" (./)! hat is $ore,

+nteraction theory%%by draing "attention to the creative, online strategic aspects of $etaphor" (Gineste,

+ndurkhya and 1cart 20)%%is particularly suited to analy&ing co$ple' $etaphors, to be appreciated in full hen

a poetic te't is unraveled into its constituent parts and their interaction $ade e'plicit by the reader (as in the

present study)!

+n a previous essay, e have detailed the relationship beteen +nteraction theory and Gestalt psychology,

de$onstrating that the very #ualities of a $etaphor hich are stressed by +nteraction theorists enable the

study of $etaphor to fall ithin the scope of a Gestalt%oriented cognitive psychology! (/) hese $a3or #ualities

are4

() A $etaphor is an e$ergent hole, created by an interaction beteen its pri$ary and secondary sub3ects5

(2) A single $etaphor should be understood ithin a larger conte't (such as provided, typically, by the literary

te't)5

(/) Co$prehending a $etaphor is akin to proble$ solving, and in its $ost creative for$ ("productive thinking"5

erthei$er) involves an act of perceptual and se$antic restructuring!

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_36

http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Chanita+Goodblatt%22



http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Joseph+Glicksohn%22

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_36


http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Joseph+Glicksohn%22



he first to #ualities $ake e'plicit the identification of a $etaphor ith a gestalt as a "shape or for$"4 it is an

e$ergent hole, hich is fully co$prehended once the interaction beteen its pri$ary and secondary sub3ects

is fully analy&ed5 such an analysis $ust be conducted at a higher level than that of a co$parison of features

(versky) and therefore re#uires a full te'tual%interaction analysis! +n su$$ary, these to #ualities foreground

the Gestalt e$phasis on the significance of conte't in deter$ining for$ and ere the focus for our previous

essay!

he present essay focuses on the third #uality, hich readily lends itself to an e$pirical investigation! 1uch an

investigation is i$portant for a nu$ber of reasons! *ne is theoretical, derived ithin Gestalt psychology itself! A

second is $etatheoretical, creating a bridge beteen to different paradig$s of cognition and a$ong different

areas of research! A third is prag$atic4 to #uote the Gestalt psychologist 6urt 7ein, "there is nothing so

practical as a good theory" (.8)! e address each of these considerations in turn!

First, in stressing proble$ solving e are placing te'tual analysis and $etaphor co$prehension ithin a Gestalt

tradition of #uestioning "hat happens if one really thinks, and thinks productively, and hat $ay be the

decisive features and the steps9" (erthei$er 2)! *ur Gestalt%+nteractionist approach vies the reader as being

faced ith a proble$%situation presented by the $etaphor and by the te't! e postulate that the reader ill be

going through a process of te'tual interpretation (i!e!, the revision of suppositions and the filling in of se$antic

gaps, as discussed by :erry and 1teinberg) hile reading! he ob3ective of the present study is thus to provide

e$pirical support for vieing $etaphor co$prehension in ter$s of the cognitive process of proble$ solving, as

students of literature begin to unravel a hole poetic te't! his is a elco$e addition to a $ore te't%based,

Gestalt%+nteractionist analysis, conducted previously!

1econdly, proble$ solving has been addressed by to different paradig$s of cognition4 that of Gestalt

psychology (erthei$er), and that of infor$ation processing (1i$on)! *ne $ethodology co$$on to both

entails having the sub3ect "think aloud" hile atte$pting to solve the proble$, and this can serve as a bridge

beteen the to paradig$s! At present, thinking aloud has beco$e a standard $ethodology in the general area

of proble$ solving (;ricsson and 1i$on), as ell as in reading and te't co$prehension (:ressley and

Afflerbach)! hat is $ore, various literary critics involved in reader%response research have adopted 1i$ons

strategy of collecting and analy&ing these verbal protocols, to provide online data about the reading process

(e!g!, Andringa)! Finally, both Monica Gregory and Gerard 1teen have recently utili&ed this strategy for studying

$etaphor co$prehension! hus by conducting an online study of the reading process e can lend e$pirical

support to our theory, hile at the sa$e ti$e creating a bridge b eteen the different orientations and research

areas herein such a $ethodology is ell accepted4



hirdly, and prag$atically, vieing $etaphor co$prehension as proble$ solving assists us in bridging the gap

beteen our to disciplines! 7iterary critics have tended to analy&e poetic te'ts and poetic $etaphor ($etaphor

ithin a poetic te't), ithout considering the findings generated by cognitive psychologists, to focus rather on

linguistic, se$antic and logical analyses (Fishelov5 <aus$an)! Cognitive psychologists, on the other hand, have

tended to analy&e single, $undane $etaphors not appearing in a poetic te't, e$phasi&ing linguistic and

conceptual factors involved in $etaphor co$prehension (Gibbs5 Glucksberg and 6eysar)! +n short, one can say

that literary critics have not looked at real readers of $etaphor, hile psychologists have not looked at

$etaphor ithin real%%that is to say, hole%%te'ts! -y using both real readers and literary te'ts, e are able to

forge a constructive dialogue beteen disciplines, as e analy&e the te'ts (verbal protocols) generated by our

readers in their striving to solve t he proble$s raised by the te't presented to the$!

2. Test ase: !illiam arlos !illiams"s #$rrival#

+n our online study of poetic $etaphor, the readers ere given the poe$ "Arrival" (see p!=/>) by the A$erican

poet illia$ Carlos illia$s (??/%8./)! his poe$ does not si$ply co$prise a suitable te't for an e$pirical

investigation ("everyday" language, brief te't, distinct syntactical units), but also brings to the fore central

literary, cultural, and psychological concerns! :ublished in illia$ss volu$e 1our Grapes in 82, "Arrival"

appears against a cultural background e$phasi&ing the central role of i$agery in philosophy, psychology, and

literature! hat is $ore, this poe$ addresses issues of perception hich are central to his poetic corpus at

large (7akoff and urner5 Gee5 rouard)! "Arrival" is thus an apt e'pression of illia$ss on state$ent that

there "are no ideas but in things" (Autobiography /80)5 indeed this process of thinking ith things, rather than

of the$ to illustrate thought @!!! enters Arrival, ith its casual and surprising descent into a tadry inter of

e'perience" (hitake r B.)!

illia$ss state$ent gives focus to the oft%#uoted +$agist state$ent, penned by his friend and fello poet ;&ra

:ound, that "an +$age is that hich presents an intellectual and e$otional co$ple' in an instant of ti$e"

(/0)! he i$age to hich both illia$s and :ound refer readily lends itself to e$pirical in#uiry! uring the

first decade of the tentieth century, e'peri$ental psychologists provided evidence that put to #uestion the

philosophical pre$ise that all $ental life could be concreti&ed into either percepts or i$ages! he psychologists

de$onstrated that so$e thoughts involved i$ages, hile others could be characteri&ed as being "i$ageless!"

he resulting "i$ageless thought" debate in psychology placed i$agery as a focus of interest for psychological

investigation! (=)



<o, e $ight ask, is this linked to illia$s and :ound as +$agist poets9 +t should be recalled that Continental

philosophy and psychology ere not necessarily separate disciplines at this ti$e, as "e'peri$ental psychology

re$ained asubfield of philosophy in the Ger$an%speaking universities until 8=" (Ash ==)! +$agery as also

a topic of concern for philosophy5 thus, philosophers of note such as <enri -ergson began to discuss this and

other for$s of $ental life (Dichardson /85 Dussell >8B)! hat is $ore, one can trace a direct -ergsonian

influence on ho$as ;! <ul$e%%the $an ho helped forge the +$agist poetics and inspired the +$agist poets

(Jones)%%as ell as a direct (but less idely noted) influence of Ger$an philosophers and psychologists! (B)

hese converging lines of thought thereby ulti$ately $ake +$agis$ part and parcel of this ider Eeitgeist

spanning all three areas!

urning fro$ this consideration of the general to the particular, ho does illia$ss poe$ "Arrival" reali&e the

declared poetic $anifesto of +$agis$9 o best anser this #uestion one should consider the to $etaphors of

this poe$, $arked in bold (see p! =/>), ithin the conte't of ! 6! i$satts discussion of "ro$antic nature

i$agery!" For this poetic tradition is specifically the target of <ul$es state$ent that "the concepts that are

right and proper in their on sphere are spread over, and so $ess up, falsify and blur the clear outlines of

hu$an e'perience" (?)5 in i$satts ords, "the $etaphor @in Coleridges poe$ in fact is scarcely noticed

by the $ain state$ent of the poe$! -oth tenor @pri$ary sub3ect and vehicle @secondary sub3ect, further$ore,

are rought in a parallel process out of the sa$e $aterial" (22=)!

-y ay of contrast, illia$ss reconstruction in "Arrival" of Coleridges interrelationship of the hu$an and the

natural orlds (i!e!, the se$antic fields of "hu$an" and "nature," as discussed in the previous e$pirical studies)

distinctly $arks out the boundaries beteen the$! 6arsten <arriess co$$ent on another poe$ fro$ the sa$e

volu$e registers this difference hen she rites that "the i$age @of the floer is so strong that the vehicle

@secondary sub3ect see$s to e$ancipate itself fro$ the tenor @pri$ary sub3ect! +s it ever clear hat is vehicle

and hat is tenor9" (>>)! illia$ss focus in "Arrival" through the "erotics of the $ale ga&e" (olin B0) on the

i$age of the "tadry veined body" underlines a strongly perceptual aspect to the $etaphor! +n agree$ent

therefore ith <arries, e ould like to hypothesi&e that the reader is faced ith a proble$ of deciding hat is

the specific referent for this phrase (o$an, tree, both9)! +n addition, e presu$e that it is the vivid i$agery

of both tree trunk and o$ans body evoked by the te't as a hole (in hich the poetic $etaphor is

e$bedded) that enables a bi%directional reading of the $etaphor (the pri$ary sub3ect of the $etaphoric phrase

being either the body of a o$an or the trunk of a tree)!

Further$ore, it is because both pri$ary and secondary sub3ects are highly i$ageable that this te't is

particularly suited to a Gestalt%+nteractionist approach (Glicksohn 2/2)! +t is our hypothesis that $etaphor



co$prehension incorporates acts of proble$ solving4 hat is the referent no, or has the referent changed9

:roble$ solving in turn entails an act of "perceptual restructuring," referring to a reorgani&ation of the

perceptual field to enable the solution of a proble$ (erthei$er)! +n addition, by draing an analogy ith

perceptual restructuring, one can look for instances of hat e ter$ "se$antic restructuring," hereby there is

a reorgani&ation of the se$antic fields (folloing 6ittay) to achieve a further solution to the proble$! +t is the

+$agist "process of thinking ith things, rather than of the$" hich $akes it possible for us to refer to both a

perceptual and a se$antic restructuring on the part of the reader! +n sections / and = e ill describe this

study, present so$e $a3or results, and dra so$e conclusions!

%. &escription of Methodology

:articipants

enty%three undergraduate students of literature studying ith the first author, taken fro$ various classes but

not those specifically concerned ith $etaphor, participated in this study! All ere e'peri$entally naive and

ere unfa$iliar ith the techni#ue of thinking aloud! hey ere paid for their participation!

+t is i$portant to note here to pri$ary reasons for relying on students of literature in this study! First,

researchers conducting e$pirical studies of reader response have turned to students of literature in order to

obtain data on the reading process and literary understanding (e!g!, Andringa, 1teen)! 1econdly, cognitive

psychologists addressing proble$ solving a$ong e'perts (e!g!, chess players, scientists) have turned to select

populations fro$ ho$ infor$ative protocols can be obtained (:ressley and Afflerbach)!

Co$puteri&ed :resentation of the e't

All sections of the te't (see belo) ere prepared as visual sti$uli (:+C files) using Canvas softare, and ere

presented on a color $onitor! he e'peri$ent as controlled by 1uper7ab, run on an Apple Macintosh 7C+++!

he te't appeared on the screen until the verbal report had been co$pleted at that level (self%paced)!

:rocedure

he participants ere asked to read the poetic te't presented on a co$puter screen and provide an online

verbal report of their process of co$prehension! 1pecifically, they ere asked to provide a continuous update of

their current understanding of the te't as it unfolded on the screen! he te't as unfolded over a series of five

trials, such that at each trial $ore and $ore te't appeared on the screen (see p! =/>)! At certain points in the



te't, the reader encountered a targeted $etaphor appearing in boldface print! uring each such trial, the

reader as re#uired to focus on the task of $etaphor co$prehension!

Datings of the $etaphor, (see scales belo), ere also $ade online on each of these specific trials, after the

$etaphor had been discussed! he readers could advance to the ne't phase of the e'peri$ent ($ore te't) by

pressing the space key, only hen the tasks of the previous trial (verbal report and $etaphor ratings) had been

co$pleted! he session as taped, and the verbal reports ere transcribed for content analysis! A research

assistant ran the e'peri$ent and transcribed the protocols!

+nstructions and Dating 1cales

Folloing the suggestion recently $ade by :ressley and Afflerbach (2), e detail in this section the

instructions given to our readers! +t as stressed to the participants that they should try to provide as detailed

a protocol as possible of their reading process! hese ere the instructions appearing over the first three

screens4

+n this study, you ill be presented ith a poetic te't printed on a co$puter screen! As this te't unfolds on the

screen, you ill be asked to provide a continuing verbal report of your process of co$prehension! his verbal

report ill be taped, so you do not have to rite it don! e ant you to think aloud as you read the te't! -y

this e $ean that e are interested in hearing hat you understand by the te't in front of you, 3ust as if you

ere alone in the roo$, reading the poe$ to yourself, and trying to $ake so$e sense out, of it!

he poetic te't ill be presented in a series of seg$ents, so that during your reading process $ore and $ore

te't ill appear on the screen! :revious seg$ents ill appear in italics (like this)! :lease re$e$ber that e

ant you to continue thinking aloud as $ore and $ore seg$ents of the te't appear before you!

At certain points in the te't, you ill find a $etaphor appearing in bold print! :lease focus particularly on the

process of co$prehending this $etaphor! As each $etaphor appears, you ill be given / #uestions that can

serve as guidelines for you!

+n addition to the taped verbal reports, you ill be asked to rate each $arked $etaphor, on various scales that

ill appear on the screen! hese rating scales ill be presented, one at a ti$e, and e ask you to type in your

ratings on the screen! Folloing are definitions of the = rating scales! :lease read the$ very carefully!

1cale4 1i$ilarity of pri$ary and secondary sub3ects in each $etaphor4



o understand the ter$s "pri$ary" and "secondary" sub3ects, look at the folloing $etaphor4 "My love is a

rose!" <ere "love" @the person loved is the pri$ary sub3ect, hile "rose" is the secondary sub3ect! :lease rate

the si$ilarity beteen the pri$ary and the secondary sub3ects of the $arked $etaphor on a >%point scale! his

scale $oves beteen the ter$ "very dissi$ilar" @ and the ter$ "very si$ilar" @>!

ery issi$ilar 2 / = B . > ery 1i$ilar

:ractice using this scale for the $etaphor "My love is a rose" by typing in your rating no!

1cale4 ;ase of Co$prehension!

:lease rate ho easy or difficult you find it to co$prehend the $etaphor, on a >%point scale! his scale $oves

beteen the ter$ "very difficult" @ and the ter$ "very easy" @>!

ery ifficult 2 / = B . > ery ;asy


1cale4 Concrete%%Abstract!

:lease rate the degree of concreteness or abstractness of the $etaphor on a >%point scale! he ter$ "concrete"

refers to ob3ects, hile the ter$ "abstract" refers to concepts that cannot be e'perienced by the senses! his

scale $oves beteen the ter$ "concrete" @ and the ter$ "abstract" @>!

Concrete 2 / = B . > Abstract

:ractice using this scale for the $etaphor "My love is a rose" by typing in your rating no!"

1cale4 u$ber of Alternative +nterpretations!

:lease rate the nu$ber of alternative interpretations you can suggest for the $etaphor, fro$ your reading of it

ithin its conte't! his scale $oves beteen the ter$ "fe" @ and the ter$ "$any" @>!

Fe 2 / = B . > Many




*n encountering the targeted $etaphors, the reader as pro$pted by three #uestions appearing on the screen

beneath the te't, to discuss the process of $etaphor co$prehension! 1pecifically, the reader as asked to

indicate in the verbal protocol4

() <o the reader identified the $arked phrase as being a $etaphor5

(2) o indicate hat infor$ation in the te't is of use in co$prehending each $etaphor5

(/) hether the $eaning of the $etaphor changed as $ore te't appeared!

*n co$pleting the verbal report concerning co$prehension of the target $etaphors, the reader as presented

ith the four rating scales, appearing on separate, consecutive screens, one at a ti$e! *rder of presentation of

these scales as balanced (as far as this as possible)!

1cales si$ilar to these have been previously e$ployed in the rating of $etaphoric sentences by ourselves and

by others (6at&, :aivio, Marschark, and Clark)! hile the data gathered on these are of interest in the$selves,

this strategy of having the readers rate the te'ts also served as a validation check, given our previous data

gathered using a co$parable population of readers and the sa$e te'ts, but in #uestionnaire for$at!

Content Analysis

-oth authors served as independent raters for content analysis! e looked at the strategies adopted by the

readers in their reading! hese ere our operational definitions4

() +s there evidence for an act of proble$ solving on the part of the reader9 hat is, are proble$s raised and

are solutions suggested9 Further, does this act of proble$ solving involve perceptual or se$antic restructuring9

(2) oes the reader turn to an analysis of se$antic fields in the reading9 hat is, is there e'plicit $ention of

se$antic fields (e!g!, "nature")9 Further, are these se$antic fields si$ply identified, or actually used in

se$antic restructuring9

'. (esults and &iscussion

)erbal Protocols

he length of the e'peri$ental session (deter$ined pri$arily by the length of the verbal protocol) ranged

beteen and => $inutes ($ed H . $in)! ata fro$ to readers ere lost due to nonco$pliance ith the



instructions, and thus the content analysis is based on an n of 2! A total of eight participants (/?I) ere

considered by both 3udges to be "good" readers5 they provided protocols that both contained a si&able a$ount

of content and e'hibited at least one of the to strategies discussed above! A total of nine participants (=/I)

ere considered by both 3udges to have provided inade#uate readings! +nter%rater agree$ent as thus ?I,

hich ould be considered to be ade#uate (Green)! e disagreed ith respect to four participants! *n

atte$pting to resolve this discrepancy, e found that for all four of these there as an ele$ent of proble$

solving picked up by one 3udge, and not by the other! +n our subse#uent content analyses, e decided to

discard these readers and to focus only on the clear%cut distincti on beteen "good" and "inade#uate" readings!

e first looked at the length of the e'peri$ental session as a function of type of reader ("good" or inade#uate)!

A si$ple t%test co$paring the to groups revealed, as ould be e'pected, that the eight better readers

provided slightly longer protocols (M H 2!B8 $inutes, 1 H 2!8?) than did the nine others (M H 8!>0, 1 H

?!/2), but not significantly so (t )! (.)

(ating Scales

e co$puted $ean values across the to $etaphors per reader, for each scale! +n such a $anner, e obtained

a representative, individual value for each scale, $atching so$ehat the global ratings obtained across

$etaphors fro$ the previous e$pirical studies! e subse#uently co$pared the data of those eight readers

considered to have been "good" to those of the nine readers hose readings ere considered to have been

inade#uate! here as only one notable difference4 for the "good" readers, the $etaphors in the te't ere

rated as being $uch easier to co$prehend (M H =!>B, 1 H 0!>.) than they ere for those providing

inade#uate readings (M H /!.>, 1 H !0.5 t H 2!=0, df H B, p !0B)! Apart fro$ this, all seventeen readers

agreed that the $etaphors ere slightly abstract (M H =!.B), that their sub3ects ere neither si$ilar nor

dissi$ilar (M H /!8), and that there ere fe alternative interpretations (M H /!/B)!

$nalysis of )erbal Protocols

*ur analysis of the verbal protocols ill necessarily be presented in to stages! *ur goal in this section is to

e'e$plify the type of protocols obtained, by #uoting e'tensively fro$ to different readers! +n the folloing

section (#uoting e'tensively fro$ another three readers), e ill present a general sche$e ithin hich one

can trace the process of $etaphor co$prehension in the protocols!



e ill therefore no look at selected sections of to verbal protocols, focusing on the $etaphoric phrases

"dropping its silk and linen leaves" and "tadry veined body!" e consider the first protocol to be a good

reading4

!!! the fact that her dress is described as silk and linen leaves that drop about her ankles

!!! +t could be, $aybe shes $other nature9 1hes a o$an, nature is a o$an, and she is adorned in silk and

linen leaves! -eauty of nature! he fact that the leaves drop about her ankles could be, yes it changes the, the

$etaphor because it directly connects nature and autu$n to a o$an, to this o$an, and hes obviously in a

very inti$ate situation! !!! adry and veined could be like a tree !!! ith its branches and roots but in a

$ore !!! $ore pretty vie of the tree but !!! not the beautiful green, but, but the $ore eh, the violent aspect of,

of the branches and, and roots that arent necessarily beautiful!!!! ell + used the, the fact that theyre

$entioning leaves !!! to, to eh, to connect it to a tree and autu$n !!! and the body !!! the body is the o$an

hether she be a real o$an or $other nature !!! or nature as a o$an !!! ;h$ !!! ell hen you say e$erges

it could $ean that in autu$n the leaves fall off the tree and they eh !!! sho the bare tree ith its branches so

the e$erge does sort of help $e understand the $etaphor in the ay that + understand it because !!! it brings

us back to autu$n and leaves falling and so !!! it, its as if the dress fall off, of nature and unveils !!! the

natures naked body!

+n this reading, one can see an active process of proble$ solving (e!g!, in the #uestion "$aybe shes $other

nature9")! his readers strategy for solving the proble$ posed by the first $etaphor ("silk and linen leaves") is

to go through a process of reasoning, by building a (faulty) syllogis$4 she @the character earing "her dress"

is a o$an (A is -)5 nature is a o$an @"$other nature"5 $ythological andKor ro$antic i$age5 C is -)5

therefore nature ears a dress (A is C)! +n this $anner, the reader generates the si$ilarity beteen dress and

autu$n leaves! +n the readers ords is a definition of proble$ solving as entailing both perceptual and

se$antic restructuring4 "it changes the $etaphor because it directly connects nature and autu$n to a o$an!"

+n response to the second $etaphor ("tadry veined body"), the readers use of ro$antic nature i$agery is

shattered ith the sustained concentration on the i$age of the "veined tree!" his confor$s to the declared

poetics of the +$agist poe$, in hich the visual aspects of the i$age contrast ith the ro$antic, blurred

$etaphor, in this instance serving to ironically redefine the conventional $otif of "$other nature!" Further$ore,

this reader entertains a bi%directional reading of the poetic te't, as the se$antic field of "nature" (in the guise

of the autu$n tree) beco$es fused ith that of "hu$an" (the o$an)!



he second protocol provides the opportunity both to present a descriptive discussion and then to $ove beyond

it to a prescriptive one, defining hat for us co$prises an inade#uate reading4

!!! eh !!! leaves cannot be silk and linen !!! therefore its $etaphor, but theyre beautiful so the poet co$pares

the$ to silk and linen! heyre beautiful to the touch, to feel the$ 3ust like silk and linen!!!! @tadry veined

body this is, ah, sure its a $etaphor, yeah because autu$n doesnt have a body, its not a hu$an being, aha,

so this is the e'planation!

A salient characteristic of this protocol is its brevity! hile the previous reader built a (faulty) syllogis$ in order

to dra an inference about the $eaning of the first $etaphor, this readers strategy for solving the proble$ is

to use se$antic ano$aly to identify the phrase as $etaphor ("leaves cannot be silk and linen")! For this second

reader, the $etaphor is thus co$prehended solely on the basis of an e'isting si$ilarity (#uality of touch)5 this

is in line ith Co$parison theory! Degarding the second $etaphor, its identification is again on the basis of

recogni&ing a se$antic ano$aly ("autu$n doesnt have a body"), ith the reader not even providing any

e'planation of an e'isting si$ilarity!

*n a $ore prescriptive note, hat distinguishes this reading fro$ the previous, "good" reading9 +n anser, e

see that the first reader dras an inference and generates the si$ilarity beteen the dress and the leaves (in

line ith our on Gestalt%+nteractionist approach)! -y ay of contrast, the second reader focuses on a se$antic

ano$aly and pree'isting si$ilarity (in line ith Co$parison theory)! e can thus say that for the first reader, in

atte$pting to solve proble$s raised by the te't, $etaphor co$prehension involves hat the psychologist

Jero$e -runer has described as "going beyond the infor$ation given!" he second reader, hoever, is not

challenged by the te't, because local co$parisons are dran on to resolve ano$alies5 in other ords, there is

neither perceptual nor se$antic restructuring based on an appreciation of the hole te't!

Tracing the Process of Metaphor omprehension

e ill no trace out the process of $etaphor co$prehension, represented both in diagra$$atic for$ and in a

table! Figure (p! =/8) presents a flochart of the process of $etaphor co$prehension, specific to the poe$

"Arrival!" his flochart as devised on the basis of a nu$ber of sources4 our on independent readings of the

te't5 responses to the te't gathered in #uestionnaire for$at fro$ the to earlier e$pirical studies5 and the

verbal protocols of the eight "good" readers! able provides verbati$ e'a$ples of critical points in the

individual verbal protocols of three of these "good" readers, together ith their $ean rating of the nu$ber of

alternative interpretations! hese protocols can be co$pared ith the ideali&ed reading process concreti&ed in

the flochart, $uch as one can co$pare verbal protocols of proble$ solving to co$puter algorith$s (1i$on)!



*ur goal in such a co$parison is to discuss in hat ay these readers both approach and deviate fro$ the ideal

reading presented in Figure !

William Carlos Williams. "Arrival" (Collected Poems 164-65) *

And yet one arrives somehow !1

#inds himsel# loosenin$ the hoo%s o#

her dress

in a stran$e &edroom -- !'

#eels the atmn

droin$ its sil% and linen leaves

a&ot her an%les. !

+he tawdry veined &ody emer$es !4

twisted on itsel#

li%e a winter wind ..., !5

* +he nm&ers in &rac%ets indicate the amont o# tet resented

(cmlatively) over the 5 trials

+n the flochart, the continuu$ of reading the te't is represented on the left by a series of five bo'es

connected by arros, hile the process of $etaphor co$prehension is represented by the group of connected

bo'es on the right! e ill focus here on the to instances of proble$ solving! he organi&ation of the table

$atches this focus!

he first act of proble$ solving is evoked by an i$plicit #uestion4 hat are "silk and linen leaves" (designated

in the flochart as :roble$ )9 An analysis in ter$s of the to se$antic fields of "nature" and "hu$an"

provides for alternative readings, depending on hich of these is vieed as the pri$ary and hich as the

secondary sub3ect of the $etaphor! +n other ords, either the dress is perceived as (falling) autu$n leaves, or

the autu$n leaves are perceived as a (dropping) dress (see Fig! )! urning to able , e can see that all

three readers approach this ideal reading5 for Deaders and 2 "nature" and "hu$an" alternate in the role of

pri$ary and secondary sub3ects, hile Deader / adopts only one of these alternative readings! +n these

readings, there is an act of co$parison (Chiappe and 6ennedy) that e$phasi&es co$$on #ualities (touch,

color) or the draing of an analogy (Gentner et al!) that in the present case resonates ith a $ore e'tended

concept of "$other nature!"



he second act of proble$ solving is divided (by illia$ss use of en3a$b$ent) into to stages, hich are

evoked by to i$plicit #uestions4 hat is a "veined body"9 (designated in the flochart as :roble$ 2a)5 and

hat is "tisted upon itself9 (designated in the flochart as :roble$ 2b)! (>) -ased on prior i$ages, the

reading of the second $etaphor ould result either in the i$age of a veined body of a o$an or in a veined

trunk of a tree! *n proceeding to the final syntactical unit, the i$age of a "veined" o$ans body ould be

subse#uently transfor$ed into an i$age of an old o$an hile the i$age of a "veined" tree trunk ould be

subse#uently transfor$ed into an i$age of an old tree!

urning to able , e can see that all three readers approach this ideal reading! For Deader , the resolution of

this proble$ is to transfor$ the i$age of the o$an fro$ one ho is young and beautiful to one ho is old!

Deader 2 directly notes having a proble$ ith the phrase "veined body!" herefore, this reader is e'plicitly

going through a process of proble$ solving, hich is subse#uently resolved by thinking of a thin person! Deader

/ also grapples ith the te't, co$$enting both on the body of a tree and on the o$ans age, ithout

apparently being able to resolve the proble$!

e further note that Deaders and 2, ho indicate a large nu$ber of alternative interpretations on that rating

scale, also go beyond uni%directional analogy in their reading! For these readers, an initial i$age of a young and

beautiful o$an is transfor$ed into a less attractive person, and at the sa$e ti$e the i$age of an autu$n

tree is transfor$ed into an old and tisted tree trunk! +n entertaining both of these readings, and in alternating

beteen the$, the reader can subse#uently generate si$ilarity (+ndurkhya) beteen the i$age of the old

o$an (the se$antic field of "hu$an") and that of the old tree (the se$antic field of "nature"), thereby going

beyond uni%directional analogy (-lack)!

*. onclusion

As a concluding state$ent, it is orth recalling that tenty%five years ago the psychologist Dichard -illo could

begin his revie on $etaphor by riting that "at first thought, $etaphor appears to be a topic for literary

rather than psychological concern" (?)! he present study has taken up this challenge! e have shon ho

real readers have dealt ith a real te't in real ti$e! e have also i$ple$ented a $ethodological strategy that

3u'taposes an analysis of individual protocols ith a depiction of the reading process by $eans of a flochart!

Finally, e have been careful to align a particular instance of poetics to a cognitive Fra$eork! +n reply to

-illo, e have therefore shunned an "either%or" solution to the study of $etaphor, proposing instead an

interaction beteen the to disciplines of literature and cognitive psychology that ill hopefully provide further

opportunities for productive research!



@F+GLD; *M+;

+a&le 1

ndividal ver&al rotocols

/eader 1

Pro&lem 10 the ndressin$ o# the woman is

"droin$ its sil% as a tree looses its leaves in

and linen leaves" atmn... the leaves o# the

23A-A+2/ trees are rstic and &rown

li%e the colors o# atmn

are #allin$ to the $rond

A+2/-23A an analo$y &ein$ drawn

&etween the tree losin$

its leaves and the woman

&ein$ ndressed

Pro&lem 'a0 well this chan$es my whole

"tawdry veined &ody" ercetion ... actally tho$h

o# actally tho$ht o# this

23A-A+2/ woman as initially yon$ and

&eati#l and slender wearin$

a sil% dress ... can dedce

that this woman is also an

old woman with veined with

a tawdry and veined old &ody

A+2/-23A we have now the trn% and the

&ody o# the tree &ein$

elained in terms o#



old a$e very veined

Pro&lem '&0 the tawdry veined &ody emer$es

"twisted on itsel# twisted on itsel# so its

li%e a winter wind" o&viosly an old erson ...

the natre is &ein$ &ro$h

23A-A+2/ a$ain or a second time as

the winter wind twists and

&lows a$ainst itsel#

o. o# alternative 5.7

interretations

/eader '

Pro&lem 10 yove $ot the dress

"droin$ its sil% #allin$ o## li%e the

and linen leaves" leaves #rom tree

23A-A+2/

A+2/-23A atmn droin$ droin$ leaves

... li%e sil% and linen

droin$ arond the an%les

Pro&lem 'a0 dont thin% yo tal% a&ot

"tawdry veined &ody" a veined &ody ... +he veined

&ody ... ve $ot a ro&lem

23A-A+2/ with that one ... veined

&ody cold &e comared

to the leaves



A+2/-23A

Pro&lem '&0 ts o&viosly a thin erson

"twisted on itsel# emer$in$ #rom the &ody and the

li%e a winter wind" &ones stic%in$ ot li%e the leaves

in the tree ... yove $ot all the

23A-A+2/ twisted &rances and yo $ot the

wintry &ody

o. o# alternative 4.5

interretations

/eader

Pro&lem 10

"droin$ its sil%

and linen leaves"

23A-A+2/

A+2/-23A natre is ... ersoni#ield...the

atmn loses her leaves...#or

trees leaves are also dress



Pro&lem 'a0 this &ody o# a tree which is

"tawdry veined &ody" withot any tree which is

withot any dress now

23A-A+2/

A+2/-23A

Pro&lem '&0 atmn cold &e womans a$e ...

"twisted on itsel# this word twisted twisted on

li%e a winter wind" itsel# li%e a winter wind it

&rin$s some #eelin$ that ... it

23A-A+2/ cold &e connected with ... a$e

o. o# alternative '.7

interretations

otes

(!) his e$pirical study as supported by a -en%Gurion Lniversity Faculty Desearch Grant and a -ar%+lan

Lniversity Faculty Desearch Grant! :revious versions of this paper ere delivered at the th $eeting of the

;uropean 1ociety for Cognitive :sychology (88?) and at the +nternational Conference on "he ork of Fiction4

Cognitive :erspectives" (200)!



(2!) here are currently several do$inant theories of $etaphor, each i$plicating a different act of cognition4

Co$parison (versky)5 Analogy (Gentner et al!)5 Categori&ation (Glucksberg and 6eysar)5 Conceptuali&ation

(7akoff and urner)5 and Depresentation (6ittay)! +nteraction theory i$plicates :erception5 our particular

variant i$plicates :roble$ 1olving! As Gibbs su$s it up, "o single theory provides a co$prehensive account of

ho people understand all kinds of $etaphorical language" (2.2)!

(/!) he essay by Glicksohn and Goodblatt discusses several of the for$s that +nteraction theory has taken in

recent years and also provides the conceptual basis for the e$pirical studies published by Goodblatt, cited

throughout the present paper!

(=!) -eteen 80 and the 820s, one school of thought (that of ;dard -! itchener, at Cornell Lniversity)

clai$ed that all thought as e'pressed concretely in i$ages! he alternative position (that of the ur&burg

school), as that so$e thought (especially that of a propositional nature) as i$ageless (<u$phrey)! his

sa$e debate repeated itself B0%.0 years later in cognitive psychology (6osslyn) and continues to this day! +n

fact, +$agis$ itself has been recently recruited to the cause (Crisp)!

(B!) uring his stay in Ger$any, <ul$e co$e into contact ith several Ger$an intellectuals, including heodore

7ipps, a psychologist of note (<ynes ''i5 -oring =BB)! +n addition, his :lan for a -ook on Modern heories of Art

e'plicitly e$phasi&es both 7ipps and the "Ger$an psychologica syste$s" (<ul$e 2. %.=)!

(.!) +t should be noted that the study reported here is part of a larger one, involving both the poe$ by illia$s

and one presented subse#uently, the poe$ by ylan ho$as "After the Funeral!" hen the sa$e analysis as

conducted ith respect to the second part of the e'peri$ent, entailing the te't by ho$as, the ? better readers

provided $uch longer protocols (MH =.!.8, 1 H 20!.?) than did the 8 others (M H 2=!??, 1 H >!B/),

confir$ed by a t%test (after the data ere log%transfor$ed, due to heteroscedasticity5 t H /!/, df H B, p !

0)!

(>!) he phrase "tisted upon itself like a inter ind" is a si$ile! e have chosen not to $ark it in the te't

because e uphold the distinction beteen a $etaphor and a si$ile (Glicksohn5 Glicksohn and Goodblatt)!

orks Cited

Andringa, ;ls! "erbal ata on 7iterary Lnderstanding4 A :roposal for :rotocol Analysis on o 7evels!" :oetics

8 (880)4 2/%B>!



Ash, Mitchell G! ":sychology and :olitics in +nterar ienna4 he ienna :sychological +nstitute, 822%8=2!"

:sychology in entieth%Century hought and 1ociety! ;d! Mitchell G! Ash and illia$ D! oodard!

Ca$bridge4 Ca$bridge L:, 8?>! =/%.=!

-ier$ann, +na! "hen Metaphor Counts!" 7anguage and 7iterature . (88>)4 B>%.?!

-illo, Dichard M! "Metaphor4 A Devie of the :sychological 7iterature!" :sychological -ulletin ?= (8>>)4 ?%

82!

-lack, Ma'! "More about Metaphor!" Metaphor and hought! ;d! Andre *rtony! Ca$bridge4 Ca$bridge L:,

8>8! 8%=/!

-oring, ;din G! A <istory of ;'peri$ental :sychology! 1econd ;dition! e ork4 Appleton%Century%Crofts,

8B0!

-runer, Jero$e 1! "Going -eyond the +nfor$ation Given!" Conte$porary Approaches to Cognition4 A

1y$posiu$ <eld at the Lniversity of Colorado! ;d! <oard ;! Gruber, 6enneth D! <a$$ond and Dichard Jessor!

Ca$bridge, Mass!4 <arvard L:, 8B>! =%.8!

Chiappe, an 7!, and John M! 6ennedy! "Are Metaphors ;lliptical 1i$iles9" Journal of :sycholinguistic Desearch

28 (2000)4 />%8?!

Crisp, :eter! "+$agis$s Metaphors4 A est Case!" 7anguage and 7iterature B (88.)4 >8%82!

olin, 1haron! ";n3a$b$ent and the ;rotics of the Ga&e in illia$ss :oetry!" A$erican +$ago B0 (88/)4 28%

B/!

;ricsson, 6arl Anders, and <erbert A! 1i$on! :rotocol Analysis4 erbal Deports as ata! Ca$bridge, Mass!4 M+

:, 8?=!

Fishelov, avid! ":oetic and on%poetic 1i$ile4 1tructure, 1e$antics, Dhetoric!" :oetics oday = (88/)4 %2/!

Gee, Ja$es :aul! "he 1tructure of :erception in the :oetry of illia$ Carlos illia$s4 A 1tylistic Analysis!"

:oetics oday . (8?B)4 />B%8>!



Gentner, edre, -rian F! -odle, :hillip olff, and Consuelo -oronat! "Metaphor is 7ike Analogy!" he Analogical

Mind4 :erspectives fro$ Cognitive 1cience! ;d! edre Gentner, 6eith J! <olyoak, and -oicho ! 6okinov!

Ca$bridge, Mass!4 M+ :, 200! 88%2B/!

Gibbs, Day$ond !, Jr! he :oetics of Mind4 Figurative hought, 7anguage, and Lnderstanding! e ork4

Ca$bridge L:, 88=!

Gineste, Marie%o$ini#ue, -ipin +ndurkhya, and eroni#ue 1cart! ";$ergence of Features in Metaphor

Co$prehension!" Metaphor and 1y$bol B (2000)4 >%/B!

Glicksohn, Joseph! ":utting +nteraction heory to the ;$pirical est4 1o$e :ro$ising Desults!" :rag$atics and

Cognition 2 (88=)4 22/%/B!

Glicksohn, Joseph, and Chanita Goodblatt! "Metaphor and Gestalt4 +nteraction heory Devisited!" :oetics oday

= (88/)4 ?/%8>!

Glucksberg, 1a$, and -oa& 6eysar! "Lnderstanding Metaphorical Co$parisons4 -eyond 1i$ilarity!"

:sychological Devie 8> (880)4 /%?!

Goodblatt, Chanita! "Adding an ;$pirical i$ension to the 1tudy of :oetic Metaphor!" Journal of 7iterary

1e$antics /0 (200)4 .>%?0!

NNNNN! "1e$antic Fields and Metaphor4 Going -eyond heory!" ;$pirical 1tudies of the Arts = (88.)4 .B%>?!

Green, Alison! "erbal :rotocol Analysis!" he :sychologist ? (88B)4 2.%28!

Gregory, Monica ;! "Metaphor Co$prehension4 Fro$ 7iteral ruth to Metaphoricity and -ack Again!" Metaphor

and 1y$bolic Activity ? (88/)4 %2!

<arries, 6arsten! "Metaphor and ranscendence!" *n Metaphor! ;d! 1heldon 1acks! Chicago4 L of Chicago :,

8>8! >%??!

<aus$an, Carl D! Metaphor and Art4 +nteractionis$ and Deference in the erbal and onverbal Arts!

Ca$bridge4 Ca$bridge L:, 8?8!

<ul$e, ho$as ;! 1peculations4 ;ssays on <u$anis$ and the :hilosophy of Art! ;d! <erbert Dead! 7ondon4

Doutledge O 6egan :aul, 8.0!



<u$phrey, George! hinking4 An +ntroduction to its ;'peri$ental :sychology! 7ondon4 Methuen, 8B/!

<ynes, 1a$! "+ntroduction!" Further 1peculations4 ! ;! <ul$e! ;d! 1a$ <ynes! 7incoln4 L of ebraska :, 8.2!

vu%'''i!

+ndurkhya, -ipin! "Metaphor as Change of Depresentation4 An +nteraction heory of Cognition and Metaphor!"

Aspects of Metaphor! ;d! Jaakko <intikka! ordrecht, <olland4 6luer Acade$ic, 88=! 8B%B0!

Jones, :eter! "+ntroduction!" +$agist :oetry! ;d! :eter Jones! <ar$ondsorth, ;ngland4 :enguin, 8>2! /%=/!

6at&, Albert !, Allan :aivio, Marc Marschark, and Ja$es M! Clark! "or$s for 20= 7iterary and 2.0 onliterary

Metaphors on 0 :sychological i$ensions!" Metaphor and 1y$bolic Activity / (8??)4 8%2=!

6ittay, ;va Feder! Metaphor4 +ts Cognitive Force and 7inguistic 1tructure! *'ford4 Clarendon :, 8?>!

6osslyn, 1tephen M! +$age and Mind! Ca$bridge, Mass!4 <arvard L:, 8?0!

7akoff, George, and Mark urner! "he Metaphoric 1tructure of a 1ingle :oe$!" More than Cool Deason4 A Field

Guide to :oetic Metaphor! Chicago4 L of Chicago :, 8?8! =0%B8!

7ein, 6urt! Field heory in 1ocial 1cience4 1elected heoretical :apers! estport, Connecticut4 Greenood :,

8B!

:erry, Menahe$! "7iterary yna$ics4 <o the *rder of a e't Creates its Meanings!" :oetics oday (8>8K?0)4

/B%.= O /%.!

:erry, Menahe$, and Meir 1teinberg! "he 6ing through +ronic ;yes4 -iblical arrative and the 7iterary Deading

:rocess!" :oetics oday > (8?.)4 2?0%/0!

:ound, ;&ra! "A Fe onts by an +$agiste!" +$agist :oetry! ;d! :eter Jones! <ar$ondsorth, ;ngland4

:enguin, 8>2! /0%stevsonBPbellsouth!net/=!

:ressley, Michael, and :eter Afflerbach! erbal :rotocols of Deading4 he ature of Constructively Desponsive

Deading! <illsdale, e Jersey4 ;ribau$, 88B!

Dichardson, Alan! Mental +$agery! e ork4 1pringer, 8.8!

Dussell, -ertrand! A <istory of estern :hilosophy! e ork4 1i$on and 1chuster, 8=B!



1i$on, <erbert! "+nfor$ation%:rocessing heory of <u$an :roble$ 1olving!" <andbook of 7earning and

Cognitive :rocesses! olu$e B! ;d! ! 6! ;stes! <illsdale, e Jersey4 ;rlbau$, 8>?! 2>%8?!

1teen, Gerard J! Lnderstanding Metaphor in 7iterature4 An ;$pirical Approach! 7ondon4 7ong$an, 88=!

rouard, an! ":erceiving Gestalt in he Clouds!" Conte$porary 7iterature 22(8?)4 20B%>!

versky, A$os! "Features of 1i$ilarity!" :sychological Devie ?= (8>>)4 /2>%B2!

erthei$er, Ma'! :roductive hinking! ;nlarged ;dition! ;d! Michael erthei$er! e ork4 <arper O -rothers,

8B8!

hitaker, ho$as D! illia$ Carlos illia$s! -oston4 ayne, 8.?!

illia$s, illia$ Carlos! he Autobiography of illia$ Carlos illia$s! e ork4 e irections, 8.>!

NNNNN! he Collected :oe$s of illia$ Carlos illia$s! olu$e +4 808%8/8! ;d! A! alton 7it& and

Christopher MacGoan! e ork4 e irections, 8?.!

i$satt, ! 6! "he 1tructure of Do$antic ature +$agery!" Do$anticis$4 :oints of ie! 1econd ;dition! ;d!

Dobert F! Gleckner and Gerald ;! ;nscoe! etroit4 ayne 1tate L:, 8>B! 28%/0!

Chanita Goodblatt (chanitaPbgu$ail!bgu!ac!il) is a senior lecturer in the depart$ent of foreign literatures O

linguistics at -en%Gurion Lniversity in +srael! 1he has published articles on $etaphor and poetry in :oetics

oday, 7anguage and 7iterature, Journal of 7iterary 1e$antics, and ;$pirical 1tudies of the Arts!

Joseph Glicksohn is an associate professor in the depart$ent of cri$inology at -ar%+lan Lniversity in +srael! <e

has published articles on $etaphor and thought in :oetics oday, Metaphor and 1y$bol, :rag$atics and

Cognition, and he Journal of Mind and -ehavior!

C*:D+G< 2002 orthern +llinois Lniversity

C*:D+G< 200/ Gale Group

metaphor comprehension as problem solving

Documents