Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social WorldVol. 6:2 (2016) ► pp.243–275
Non-conventional figurative language as aesthetics of everyday communication
This study focuses on the emotional aesthetic appreciation of figurative language, a dimension which has often been neglected in experimental psycholinguistics. Our goal was to demonstrate that non-conventional figurative utterances are evaluated as more aesthetically pleasing although they are cognitively more demanding than conventional rhetorical figures. This hypothesis was tested for three main types of figurative language (metaphors, irony and idioms) in three separate surveys. Participants assessed utterances by means of a questionnaire which comprised several semantic differential items. The postulated covariation of non-conventionality and cognitive effort as well as of non-conventionality and aesthetics could be clearly established for metaphors and for irony. For idioms we could only partially provide this evidence. However, in a combined sample for all figurative language forms (compiled from the three studies) the main hypothesis was again confirmed. Thus, the results demonstrate that non-conventional variants of figurative language must be considered as the core of figurative aesthetics. Furthermore, our exploratory data gave evidence of an aesthetic paradox: the cognitive costs of understanding conventional figurative language reduce aesthetic pleasure, while in the case of non-conventional rhetoric figures the enhanced cognitive effort is accompanied by an increase in aesthetic pleasure.
References (67)
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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. 
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.
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.
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, 31, 204.
Bowdle, B.F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.
Brisard, F., Frisson, S., & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Journal of Pragmatics 16(1-2), 87–108.
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236.
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.
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.
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.
Christmann, U., & Mischo, C. (2000). The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in contributions to argumentation. Language and Speech, 43(3), 229–259.
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.
Fenner, D.E.W. (1996). The aesthetic attitude. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Gibbs, R.W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275–304.
. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
. (2002a). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506.
. (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.
. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2009). Irony. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Pragmatics encyclopedia (pp. 265–267). London: Routledge.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 311, 1601–1618.
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.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
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.
Jacobs, A.M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91, 186.
Johnson, P.O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 11, 57–93.
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.
Katz, A.N. (1996). Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17–37.
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.
Kaufer, D.S. (1981). Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510.
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.
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.
Lagerwerf, L. (2002). Deliberate ambiguity in slogans: Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3(3), 244–260.
Lagerwerf, L., & Meijers, A. (2008). Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements: Appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 19–30.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lapp, E. (1992). Linguistik der Ironie [Linguistics of irony]. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik: Vol. 369. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Lundmark, C. (2006). The creative use of idioms in advertising. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 71–98.
McQuarrie, E.F., & Mick, D.G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438.
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.
Miall, D.S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22(5), 389–407.
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.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D.D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 1–20.
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.
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.
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.
Schweigert, W. (1991). The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314.
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.
Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. The language and thought series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R.J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244.
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.
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.
Van Mulken, M., van Enschot-van Dijk, R., & Hoeken, H. (2005). Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(5), 707–721.
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.
Van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.
Vorderer, P., & Roth, F.S. (2011). How do we entertain ourselves with literary texts? Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 136–143.
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.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632.
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 [URL]
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Kronrod, Ann, Mary E. Hammar, JongSoo Lee, Herpreet K. Thind & Kelsey M. Mangano
2021. Linguistic Delight Promotes Eating Right: Figurative Language Increases Perceived Enjoyment and Encourages Healthier Food Choices. Health Communication 36:14 ► pp. 1898 ff. 
Lerche, Veronika, Ursula Christmann & Andreas Voss
2018. Impact of Context Information on Metaphor Elaboration. Experimental Psychology 65:6 ► pp. 370 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. 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.