Article published in:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 6:2 (2016) ► pp. 243275
References

References

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G.
(1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bauer, D.J., & Curran, P.J.
(2005) Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlyne, D.E.
(Ed.) (1974) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Blasko, D.G., & Connine, C.M.
(1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohrn, I.C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A.M.
(2012) Old proverbs in new skins - an FMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B.F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brisard, F., Frisson, S., & Sandra, D.
(2001) Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Journal of Pragmatics 16(1-2), 87–108.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Coulson, S.
(2010) Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P.J.
(2012) Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 231–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C.-T., & Yen, C.-T.
(2013) Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 80–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D.L., Kennedy, J.M., & Chiappe, P.
(2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christmann, U., & Mischo, C.
(2000) The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in contributions to argumentation. Language and Speech, 43(3), 229–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christmann, U., Wimmer, L., & Groeben, N.
(2011) The aesthetic paradox in processing conventional and non-conventional metaphors: A reaction time study. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(2), 199–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, D.E.W.
(1996) The aesthetic attitude. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W.
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock, C. Strapparava, & A. Nijholt (Eds.), The April Fools’ Day workshop on computational humour. Proceedings of the twentieth Twente workshop on language technology (pp. 11–28). Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Irony. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Pragmatics encyclopedia (pp. 265–267). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I.
(2015) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(1999) On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groeben, N.
(1977) Rezeptionsforschung als empirische Literaturwissenschaft. Paradigma- durch Methodendiskussion [Reception research as empirical study of literature. Discussion of paradigm by discussion of method]. Kronberg: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Groeben, N., & Scheele, B.
(1986) Produktion und Rezeption von Ironie. Pragmalinguistische Beschreibung und psycholinguistische Erklärungshypothesen [Production and reception of irony. Pragmalinguistic description and psycholinguistic attempts at explanation] (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hayes, A.F.
(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, R.A., & Vipond, D.
(1985) Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy, 14(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A.M.
(2015) Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P.O., & Neyman, J.
(1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
Jones, L.L., & Estes, Z.
(2006) Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A.N.
(1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A.N., & Ferretti, T.R.
(2001) Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 193–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D.S.
(1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, J.
(1990) Zur Funktion “wörtlicher Bedeutung”: Am Beispiel ästhetischer Reaktionen auf Witze [On the function of “literal meaning“: Using the example of aesthetic responses to jokes] (Unpublished diploma thesis). University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Kronrod, A., & Danziger, S.
(2013) “Wii Will Rock You!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lagerwerf, L.
(2002) Deliberate ambiguity in slogans: Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3(3), 244–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lagerwerf, L., & Meijers, A.
(2008) Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements: Appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 19–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lapp, E.
(1992) Linguistik der Ironie [Linguistics of irony]. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik: Vol. 369. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Lundmark, C.
(2006) The creative use of idioms in advertising. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 71–98.Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E.F., & Mick, D.G.
(1996) Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miall, D.S.
(1992) Response to poetry: Studies of language and structure. In E.F. Nardocchio (Ed.), Reader response: The empirical dimension (pp. 153–170). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miall, D.S., & Kuiken, D.
(1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22(5), 389–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukařovský, J.
(1964 [1932) Standard language and poetic language. In P. L.Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D.D.
(2001) Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P.M., Ferretti, T.R., & Katz, A.N.
(2000) Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P.
(2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, R.
(1997) Metapher: Erfassen und Verstehen frischer Metaphern [Metaphor: Conceiving and comprehending fresh metaphors]. Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur: Bd. 75. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Schweigert, W.
(1991) The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K.
(2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 47–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, V.
(1965 [1917]) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis U (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. The language and thought series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R.J.
(1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Enschot, R., & Hoeken, H.
(2015) The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials. Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R., & Forceville, C.
(2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418–3430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., van Enschot-van Dijk, R., & Hoeken, H.
(2005) Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(5), 707–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., van Hooft, A., & Nederstigt, U.
(2014) Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Peer, W.
(1986) Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Vorderer, P., & Roth, F.S.
(2011) How do we entertain ourselves with literary texts? Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 136–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1969) Problems in the analysis of idioms. In J. Puhvel (Ed.), Substance and structure of language: Lectures delivered before the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, University of California, Los Angeles, June 17 – August 12, 1966 (pp. 23–82). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2002) Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, L.
(2015) Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten [The aesthetic paradox in processing fictional vs. non-fictional texts] (Doctoral thesis, University of Heidelberg, Germany). Retrieved from http://​archiv​.ub​.uni​-heidelberg​.de​/volltextserver​/18232/Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kronrod, Ann, Mary E. Hammar, JongSoo Lee, Herpreet K. Thind & Kelsey M. Mangano
2020. Linguistic Delight Promotes Eating Right: Figurative Language Increases Perceived Enjoyment and Encourages Healthier Food Choices. Health Communication  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Lerche, Veronika, Ursula Christmann & Andreas Voss
2018. Impact of Context Information on Metaphor Elaboration. Experimental Psychology 65:6  pp. 370 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.