Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations

Abstract

Some sentences can have both a literal and a metaphorical meaning, but typically only one is appropriate. What contextual constraints lead readers to the appropriate interpretation? This article focuses on a particular kind of discourse‐driven constraint: A meaning may be selected not only because context strongly suggests it, but because the alternative meaning is eliminated by context. It is commonly believed that a metaphorical interpretation may be selected because a literal interpretation would have been inappropriate. This article argues the same for a literal interpretation: A literal interpretation may be selected because a metaphorical interpretation would have been inappropriate. Three experiments demonstrated this claim: In Experiment 1 readers completed sentences and rated them as literal or metaphorical, in Experiment 2 they judged comprehension difficulty, and Experiment 3 measured comprehension latency. The experiments yielded similar patterns for metaphorical and literal interpretations, suggesting that similar discourse principles govern the selection of both interpretations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.