The Role of Suppression and Enhancement in Understanding Metaphors

• Published in: Journal of memory and language 2001-10, Vol.45 (3), p.433-450
• Main Authors: Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, Keysar, Boaz, Robertson, Rachel R.W., Werner, Necia K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; figurative language; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; inhibition; Language; language comprehension; metaphor comprehension; Production and perception of written language; psycholinguistics; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; suppression
• ISSN: 0749-596X; 1096-0821
• DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2782

Participants read either a metaphorical prime sentence, such as That defense lawyer is a shark, or 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-prime versus the baseline-prime sentence, producing a suppression effect. As Glucksberg and Keysar's (1990) class inclusion theory of metaphor predicts, the enhancement and suppression effects demonstrate that the vehicle of a metaphor stands for the superordinate category of the vehicle, and not for its basic-level meaning.