UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Psychosemantic aspects of figurative language Wilkinson, Walter Keith 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A1 W54.pdf [ 5.92MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076970.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076970-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076970-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076970-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076970-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076970-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076970-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076970-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076970.ris

Full Text

PSYCHOSEMANTIC ASPECTS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE by WALTER KEITH WILKINSON B.Ed., University of Alberta, 1965 M.Ed., University of Alberta, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Interdisciplinary) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1976 (c)Walter Keith Wilkinson, 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e fo r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permiss ion for e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copy ing or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of <£\Z> UC/j-TiO /O/H-The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date -2L? ArPB-lt-A b s t r a c t Unusual but meaningful combinations of ideas and t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n i n language are common i n everyday l i f e but no theory has yet been a b l e to e x p l a i n adequately t h e i r nature nor t h e i r e f f e c t s upon human thought and b e h a v i o r . Four hypotheses to e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n t aspects of f i g u r a t i v e language were proposed and e l a b o r a t e d : a s t r u c t u r a l h y p o t h e s i s , an imagery h y p o t h e s i s , and two l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses, one based upon semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s and the other upon F i l l m o r e ' s case grammar. The s t r u c -t u r a l hypothesis s p e c i f i e d a number of conceptual r e l a t i o n s which u n d e r l i e the o p e r a t i o n of f i g u r e s — s i m i l a r i t y , c o n t i g u i t y , h i e r a r c h y , and, most g e n e r a l l y , conceptual i n t e g r a t i o n . The imagery hypothesis d i s t i n g u i s h e d those f i g u r e s comprised of c o n s t i t u e n t s with h i g h imagery r a t i n g s from those with low imagery r a t i n g s and i m p l i e d that c e r t a i n combinations of high and low imagery c o n s t i t u e n t s would produce more e f f e c t i v e f i g u r e s than other combinations. The l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses generated expectations regarding the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of [-human] s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n v i o l a -t i o n s and the e f f e c t s of v i o l a t i n g a g e n t i v e , o b j e c t i v e , and d a t i v e case requirements. To t e s t the hypotheses 240 grade e i g h t , n i n e , and ten students from a high-SES area of Greater Vancouver were given group c u e d - r e c a l l t e s t s , and l i k e a b i l i t y , s i m i l a r i t y and comprehension s c a l e s for s e v e r a l l i s t s of f i g u r a t i v e expressions r e p r e s e n t i n g aspects of the v a r i o u s hypotheses i n two s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s — n o m i n a l - c o p u l a - n o m i n a l f i g u r e s , such as "A t h i c k e t i i i i i i s a c i t y " , and nominal-verb-nominal figures such as "The d a f f o d i l cripples the shadow". Grade trends were s l i g h t , although students i n higher grades under-stood figurative language i n a more abstract way and l i k e d i t better than students i n lower grades. The psychological relevance of the s t r u c t u r a l hypothesis was p a r t i c -u l a r l y well substantiated by the observations. For r e c a l l and l i k e a b i l i t y , but especially for comprehension, students discriminated amongst figures i n such a way as to show that the conceptual relations of s i m i l a r i t y , contig-u i t y , hierarchy, and integration are functional aspects of thought operat-ive during the r e t r i e v a l and interpretation of f i g u r a t i v e language. Moderate s i m i l a r i t y between concepts i n high imagery metaphors produced more like a b l e figures than either extreme s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y , but for figures of mixed imagery and embedded conceptual relations highly similar concepts produced more like a b l e figures. High imagery proved to be related strongly to figure r e c a l l , moderately to figure l i k e a b i l i t y but only modestly to figure comprehension. Figures with high imagery nouns surpassed those with high imagery verbs on a l l measures, and order of high and low imagery constituents favored Paivio's "conceptual peg" hypothesis for r e c a l l . Figures involving human semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s were less w e l l recalled than those involving other v i o l a t i o n s , figures involving dative case vi o l a t i o n s were less w e l l recalled than those involving objective case v i o l a t i o n s , and two case vi o l a t i o n s produced higher l i k e a b i l i t y and better comprehension than a single case v i o l a t i o n . These effects are more d i f f i c u l t to integrate t h e o r e t i c a l l y than those observed under the i v imagery or s t r u c t u r a l hypotheses. Because the s t r u c t u r a l hypothesis i s more c o n s i s t e n t l y supported by the data than are the l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses, and because the imagery hypo-t h e s i s can l a r g e l y be subsumed w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r a l one, the l a t t e r , i t i s argued, provides the most adequate explanation of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of f i g u r a t i v e language. Fundamental i n the comprehension of f i g u r a t i v e thought i s conceptual i n t e g r a t i o n , a c o g n i t i v e process f a c i l i -t a ted by high imagery-inducing q u a l i t i e s of f i g u r e components, c l e a r s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s between them, and presence of s u f f i c i e n t semantic anomaly to maintain an optimal l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e a r o u s a l . V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Importance of Figurative Thought 1 B. Objectivescof the Investigation and Research Questions 3 I I . HYPOTHESES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE THOUGHT 7 A. Cognitive Approaches 8 1. A Structural Hypothesis 8 2. An Imagery Hypothesis 20 B. L i n g u i s t i c Approaches 23 1. Selectional R e s t r i c t i o n Violations i n Traditional Transformational Generative Grammar 23 2. Selectional R e s t r i c t i o n Violations i n Case Grammar 26 C. Limitations of Hypotheses, Interactions and Related Measures 31 I I I . METHODOLOGY 36 A. Study I: Nominal-Copula-Nominal Figures 36 1. Design and Materials L i s t 1: Variations i n Structure, Imagery and Semantic Feature Violations 36 L i s t 2: High Imagery Metaphors with Variations i n Inter-Concept S i m i l a r i t y and Semantic Feature Violations 39 2. Subjects 39 3. Procedures L i s t 1 41 L i s t 2 42 4. Scoring 42 B. Study I I : Nominal-Verb-Nominal Figures with Variations i n Case Violations and Imagery 43 1. Design and Materials 43 2. Subjects ' 45 3. Procedures 45 v i Chapter IV. RESULTS 46 A. Study I 46 B. Study I I 59 V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . 76 A. The Structural Hypothesis 76 B. The Imagery Hypothesis 86 C. L i n g u i s t i c Hypotheses 87 D. General Conclusions 88 E. Implications for Further Research 91 F. Implications for P r a c t i c a l Applications 91 REFERENCE NOTES 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 APPENDICES 101 LIST OF TABLES Table I P r o p e r t i e s of the Nominal-copula-nominal Figures ( L i s t 1) I I P r o p e r t i e s of the High Imagery Metaphors ( L i s t 2) . . . I l l P r o p e r t i e s of the Nominal-verb-nominal Figures ( L i s t 3) IV Mean Scores f o r L i s t 1 Figur e s by Embedded S t r u c t u r a l R e l a t i o n s V Mean Scores f o r L i s t 1 Figures by Imagery Levels . . . . VI Mean Scores f o r L i s t 1 Figures by Semantic Feature V i o l a t i o n s . . V I I Mean Scores f o r L i s t 1 Figures by Inter-concept S i m i l a r i t y V I I I Non-parametric A n a l y s i s of L i s t 1 R e c a l l Data IX Results of Analyses of Variance f o r L i s t 1 R e c a l l , L i k e -a b i l i t y and Comprehension Scores . . X Frequency and Percentage of S e l e c t i o n of Comprehension Scale Response Options f o r L i s t 1 Figures XI L i k e a b i l i t y Scale Mean Scores f o r L i s t 2 Figures . . . . XI I Mean Scores f o r L i s t 3 Figures by Case V i o l a t i o n s . . . X I I I Mean R e c a l l Scores f o r L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels XIV L i k e a b i l i t y Scale Mean Scores f o r L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels . XV Comprehension Scale Mean Scores f o r L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels XVI Non-parametric A n a l y s i s of L i s t 3 R e c a l l Data XVII R e s u l t s of Analyses of Variance f o r L i s t 3 R e c a l l , L i k e a b i l i t y and Comprehension Scores v i i i Table XVIII Percentages of L i s t 3 Comprehension Scale Response Options by Grade 70 XIX Frequencies of L i s t 3 Comprehension Scale Response Options by Item Types 71 XX Correlations Amongst Response Variables 74 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Percentage of cases selecting each type of response option for L i s t 1 Comprehension Scores 2 Comparison of Relative L i k e a b i l i t y Scores at different s i m i l a r i t y levels for L i s t s 1 and 2 i x 58 61 3 Percentage of cases selecting each type of response option for L i s t 3 Comprehension Scores 72 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To a l l my friends, r e l a t i v e s , colleagues, and teachers who gave me moral support and i n t e l l e c t u a l guidance throughout my program I give my thanks. Special thanks i s due to Seong-Soo Lee, my Supervisor, for his unf a i l i n g patience, breadth of v i s i o n , and attention to the d e t a i l s of my work, and to my committee members, E l l i Kongas Maranda, Nancy Suzuki, David Ingram, and Stephen Foster, for the dir e c t i o n and constructive c r i t i c i s m they provided. Thanks, too, to Alexandria, my wife, for tolerating so much, so w e l l , for so long. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. The Importance of Figurative Thought Unusualness and appropriateness together comprise the hallmark of figurative thought and of c r e a t i v i t y i n any human expression. The medium of such expression may be accessible to any of the senses, and the message may be philosophic, aesthetic or technical, but whatever i t s mode and content, regular experiences with expressions of f i g u r a t i v e thought are unavoidable. The term figure i s defined i n t h i s investigation to mean an unusual but meaningful combination of ideas; the term f i g u r a t i v e thought to mean thought characterized by such combined ideas; and the term fig u r a t i v e language to mean language distinguished by unusual but meaning-f u l combinations of l i n g u i s t i c units. Language i s the vehicle i n which f i g u r a t i v e thought i s most commonly encountered. Metaphors, metonyms, synecdoches and oxymorons are l i n g u i s t i c representations of elementary cognitive structures. These structures are dynamic i n so far as they are thought-provoking and stim-ulate mental searches for possible meanings. When a metaphor, for example, no longer provokes thought i t ceases to be dynamic and we refer to i t as a dead or frozen metaphor. Through the process of conceptual integration these and other rudi-mentary conceptual structures merge into more complex ones—analogies, 1 proverbs, r i d d l e s , models, myths, theories, ideologies, etc. These constructions are limited by the parameters of the root metaphors from which they grow (Black, 1962; Hester, 1967; Levi-Strauss, 1963; Pepper, 1971, 1972; Sarbin, 1965, 1968; Shibles, 1971a, 1971b, 1972; Turner, 1974). Technical innovation (Crovitz, 1970; Gordon, 1971, 1966; Prince, 1970), s c i e n t i f i c revolutions (Kuhn,1-1962; Leatherdale, 1974), ideological changes, psychopathologies and psychotherapies (Caru'tft & Ekstein, 1966) a l l involve a rejection of old ways of conceiving and speaking of things and substitutions of new world-views. I n i t i a l l y such views are judged as f i g u r a t i v e , and only over time do they become an integrated part of ordinary language and thought. Knowledge thus expands by a process of metaphorical and analogical extension to new domains. Inchoate subjects are given shape by metaphorical predication (Fernandez, 1974), and r a d i c a l metaphors establish i d e n t i t i e s when there are no t r a d i t i o n a l ways to speak or conceive of the issues of concern (Alleman, 1967; Cassirer, 1923). Not only i s fi g u r a t i v e thought central i n everyday language and i n our appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e ; i t i s no less important i n the "hard" sciences. The conception of the benzene r i n g , the double h e l i x model of DNA, and wave and quantum theories of l i g h t a l l originated i n metaphorical extensions from other semantic domains, i n many cases through f i g u r a l or structural modes of expression rather than purely l i n g u i s t i c ones. In the s o c i a l sciences too figurative thought plays a key role. We explore computer and perceptual analogues of cognitive functioning (Paivio, Note 1); during psychotherapy and much of our everyday l i v e s we are engaged i n a process of redefining " s e l f " , a process e n t a i l i n g metaphorical predication, a continuing change i n our conceptualization of what we are 3 and what we might be; and Karl Marx provides a r a d i c a l metaphor of immense s o c i a l consequence by describing society as a struggle between con t r o l l i n g and subservient classes rather than as a mutually b e n e f i c i a l a l l i a n c e between free agents. In the p r a c t i c a l areas of technical innovation, advertising, p o l i t i c a l propaganda, and educational and other persuasive communications a better understanding of the mechanisms of f i g u r a t i v e thought can aid us i n creating e f f e c t i v e materials and enlighten us as to how f i g u r a t i v e expressions produce the i r effects. With these general purposes i n mind more s p e c i f i c objectives emerge. B. Objectives of the Investigation and Research Questions The chief aim of the investigation was to develop and empirically test two cognitive and two l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses of f i g u r a t i v e language processing. The cognitive approaches included a structural hypothesis and an imagery hypothesis; the l i n g u i s t i c approaches included a t r a d i -t i o n a l transformational grammar and a case grammar. The term hypothesis i s used here as the most applicable of several possible terms (e.g., model, system, theory, conceptual framework) and i n the sense of being a set of provisional explanatory propositions proffered with less formality and less empirical support than would be so i n the case of theory (Marx, 1970, p. 9). Like "theory", the word "hypothesis" i s used i n a variety of ways (Kaplan, 1964; Marx, 1970) but i n t h i s investigation the intent i s to provide a l a b e l for sets of propositions modest i n scope and closely tied to empirical observations. The f i r s t l i s t of figures for Study I was designed to examine the 4 effects of (a) the different conceptual relations inherent i n metaphors, metonyms and synecdoches, (b) the rated imagery and judged s i m i l a r i t y of their components, and (c) different types of semantic r e s t r i c t i o n v i o l a -tions on the r e c a l l a b i l i t y , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehensibility of the figures. The second l i s t i n Study I focused solely on metaphors composed of nouns with high imagery ratings, and examined the importance of (a) inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y and (b) semantic r e s t r i c t i o n v i o l a t i o n s on metaphor l i k e a b i l i t y . Study I I aimed at discovering the effects of (a) vi o l a t i o n s of the agentive, objective and dative cases (Fillmore, 1968) and (b) diff e r e n t rated imagery levels of constituent units on the r e c a l l a b i l i t y , l i k e -a b i l i t y and comprehensibility of more complex figures of speech. A secondary objective i n both studies was to record possible d i f -ferences i n responses to the various types of figures by adolescents i n different grades. Inherent i n a l l the approaches was the view that comprehension of figu r a t i v e language depended upon achieving an integration of the concepts involved. The attributes of imagery, structural and case r e l a t i o n s , and semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s were examined for thei r relevance i n effecting this conceptual integration. Although the empirical aspect of the inquiry was r e s t r i c t e d to figurative language, r e l i a b l e prediction of psychological responses by the cognitive hypotheses would permit generalization of those hypotheses to figures expressed i n non-linguistic modalities. The inquiry was thus seen as an examination of fig u r a t i v e thought and not only of fi g u r a t i v e language. In general, i t was hoped to determine which of the hypotheses had the greatest psychological relevance. Results of a p i l o t study (Wilkin-son, Note 2) suggested that the l i n g u i s t i c approaches were less powerful than either of the cognitive approaches i n predicting l i k e a b i l i t y and r e c a l l a b i l i t y . Imagery was p a r t i c u l a r l y powerful i n predicting r e c a l l -a b i l i t y of figures, whereas judged s i m i l a r i t y between the major components of simple figures was the best predictor of l i k e a b i l i t y , with moderate inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y producing the most preferred figures. Guided by the findings of the p i l o t study, the present investigation sought to answer the following seven major questions: 1. Are figures of speech embodying different conceptual structures responded to d i f f e r e n t l y i n terms of r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and compre-hension? 2. How closely related i s the rated mental imagery of words to the r e c a l l , l i k i n g and comprehension of fig u r a t i v e language using those words, and what effects are there, i f any, of varying the ordinal position of high imagery elements i n a figure or the imagery levels of different grammatical form classes? 3. Can semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s or case category v i o l a t i o n s account for the r e c o l l e c t i o n , l i k i n g or understanding of fig u r a t i v e language? 4. How important i s inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y i n predict-ing psychological responses to fig u r a t i v e language? 5. Do the r e c o l l e c t i o n , l i k i n g and understanding of f i g u r a t i v e language increase with school grade? 6. Can psychological responses to fig u r a t i v e language be adequately explained by l i n g u i s t i c variables, or would f i g u r a t i v e language be better considered as a manifestation of fi g u r a t i v e thought and explained i n terms of cognitive variables? 7. Can the r e l a t i o n s h i p between imagery and conceptual s t r u c t u r e b c l a r i f i e d by observing the r e l a t i v e importance of these f a c t o r s p r e d i c t i n g responses to f i g u r a t i v e language? Answers to these questions demanded, f i r s t of a l l , f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n of the r e l e v a n t hypotheses. CHAPTER II HYPOTHESES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE THOUGHT I have already suggested that f i g u r a t i v e language can be seen as a p a r t i c u l a r example of a more general phenomenon that occurs i n a l l sign systems, f o r example, i n graphic, musical or gestural systems. Anthro-pologists (e.g., Levi-Strauss,- 1969, 1973) and semioticians (e.g., Barthes, 1970, 1973; McLuhan, 1964) commonly speak of figures i n these other modalities, and a r t i s t s , a dvertisers, and cartoonists frequently employ them. One way of studying f i g u r e s , therefore, i s to examine the general concepts and r e l a t i o n s h i p s that underlie p a r t i c u l a r modes of expression, that i s , to delineate and test p r i n c i p l e s that could apply to sign systems other than verbal ones. Excessive a t t e n t i o n to the verbal system alone may, i n f a c t , have hampered development of an adequate explanation f o r f i g u r a t i v e language (e.g., Angel, 1967). F a i l u r e to maintain d i s t i n c t i o n s amongst (a) signs, (b) those s i t u a t i o n s that they s i g n i f y , and (c) the i n t e r n a l i z e d concepts for which the signs stand has been a frequent source of confusion i n writings on f i g u r a t i v e language despite the f a c t that t h i s t r i p a r t i t e analysis was c l e a r l y outlined by Ogden and Richards as early as 1928. I t i s u s e f u l to note that when deviant verbal s t r i n g s are generated (for example, by the a r b i t r a r y juxtaposing of words), anomalous cognitive representations can r e s u l t , with a p o t e n t i a l for being reformulated i n other external sign systems. I t i s important i n theory construction to 7 8 maintain the d i s t i n c t i o n between these i n t e r n a l and external representa-tions, despite homologies between them. Whatever the external mode of representation several i n t e r n a l modes can be inferred. On the basis of past research two of these appear p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g — t h a t of quasi-logical structures and that of imagery. Consideration of both of these possible modes led to the elaboration of two theories for predicting responses to fi g u r a t i v e expres-sions. Two other hypotheses were developed by examining the external form of representation, i n this case l i n g u i s t i c . A. Cognitive Approaches 1. A Structural Hypothesis Concepts can be considered as the basic cognitive units from which figures are constructed, and some of the relationships that produce integration of those concepts can be specified. The resulting p a r t i a l , but systematic, account of fig u r a t i v e language can then be tested by observing psychological responses to the structures so defined. If there are discernible differences i n responses to d i f f e r e n t l y structured figures i t can be inferred that the in t e r n a l processing of those figures d i f f e r s . While the d i s t i n c t i o n between concepts and words has frequently been blurred i n the works of l i t e r a r y scholars, they and semioticians usually regard a metaphor as an expression e n t a i l i n g a s i m i l a r i t y r e l a -tionship between two concepts (e.g., Brooke-Rose, 1958; Kftngas Maranda, 1971). The two concepts need not be present verbally i n a pa r t i c u l a r s t r i n g of words for the metaphor to be active i f a suitable context i s presupposed. Reddy (1969) notes that (1) The rock i s becoming b r i t t l e with age does not establish a metaphor i n the context of a geological expedition, but may i f one i s discussing an elderly professor emeritus. A metaphor i s usually established on the basis of a s t r u c t u r a l , perceptual or functional s i m i l a r i t y between concepts but, i n some cases, the s i m i l a r i t y may be at a more abstract semantic l e v e l . Natural examples of verbal metaphor abound: (2) The r i v e r sweats O i l and tar (3) mustardseed sun (4) Pickets choke off c i t y mail by surrounding post o f f i c e (5) We speak of our memories as v i v i d , faded, or erased (6) Light consists of waves (7) Organization lightens the burden of the reader ( E l i o t , 1961, p. 61) (Thomas, 1952, p. 170) (Vancouver Sun, March 13, 1975, p. 1) (Paivio, Note 1) (American Psychological Association, 1967, p. 12) (8) WORDS Axes After whose stroke the wood rings, And the echoes! (Plath, 1965, p. 86) The most rudimentary l i n g u i s t i c form of a metaphor seems to be that of nominal-copula-nominal as, for example, (9) The medium i s the message and (10) An avalanche i s an acrobat. Other conceptual relations besides s i m i l a r i t y , however, may be concealed by t h i s surface form. When the relationship between two concepts i s one of contiguity or causality"*" the resulting figure i s termed a metonym. Thus the two concepts i n (11) An answer i s a problem are metonymically linked because of their frequent co-occurrence. Figures of t h i s sort are considered i n t h i s investigation to be metonyms despite the l i n g u i s t i c frame "NI i s N2" which, on f i r s t consideration, suggests that they are metaphors. In a l i k e manner, two terms whose corresponding concepts are i n hier a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n , i . e . , genus to species, whole to part, entity to attribute (or the inverse of these), are considered here as forming a synecdoche, for example: (12) A minstrel i s a musician (species-genus) (13) A hoof i s a cow (part-whole) (14) Wisdom i s a monk (attribute-entity). Paired terms whose corresponding concepts are i n a relationship of opposition are, c l a s s i c a l l y and here, defined as oxymorons: (15) Black i s white (16) Cruel kindness. Since antonyms are a l i k e i n a l l but just one respect they are, paradoxic-2 a l l y , very close to s i m i l a r i t i e s or metaphors. For t h i s reason they did not receive separate consideration i n this investigation. Since synecdoche can be considered as s i m i l a r i t y of l o g i c a l associations and "'"Hume (1748) maintained that causality was inferred when par t i c u l a r objects were constantly conjoined ( i . e . , contiguous) with each other. 2 "An antonym i s a synonym" i s an oxymoron. 11 metonym as s i m i l a r i t y of spatio-temporal location, s i m i l a r i t y , and thus metaphor, can be taken as the more rudimentary notions. Simile involves the same cognitive relationship as metaphor but a different l i n g u i s t i c form that forewarns the addressee of the hypothetical nature of the espoused s i m i l a r i t y . Direct comparison i s even more e x p l i c i t , specifying the features of the concepts that are to enter into the s i m i l a r i t y relationship. In natural language i t i s not always easy to determine which concep-tual relations are operating to integrate a figure. In some cases more than one may be present, as i n (9) or (17) A father i s a mother i n which both metaphoric and metonymic relations between the concepts are evident. In other cases several successive interpretations may be neces-sary for a f u l l understanding of a figure. On one reading of (18) Macbeth murders sleep "sleep" might be considered as a metonymical substitution . for "the sleeping King"; on another reading, "murder" as a metaphorical substitu-t i o n for a verb such as "disturbs" and "Macbeth" as a synecdoche for "Macbeth's actions"; f i n a l l y , the whole expression might be taken as a concrete and metaphorical way of saying that both patr i c i d e and the d i s -ruption of the accepted order are deeply disturbing events. S i m i l a r l y , i n (19) He sang his didn't he danced his did (e. e. cummings) simple metaphorical replacement of the anomalous words (e.g., with "song" and "dance" respectively) does not give a complete understanding of the figure, which should perhaps be taken to mean something l i k e "he verbalized his d i s l i k e s and enacted his desires". Since the st r u c t u r a l 12 h y p o t h e s i s , at i t s present l e v e l of development, r e s u l t s i n somewhat ad  hoc analyses of these more complex f i g u r e s , an i n i t i a l i n q u i r y should be l i m i t e d to simple forms, and a search made f o r other systematic methods of a n a l y s i s of complex f i g u r e s . The s t r u c t u r a l concept of conceptual i n t e g r a t i o n , however, a p p l i e s to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a l l f i g u r e s . A f i g u r e of any complexity can be s a i d to be i n t e g r a t e d to the extent that the concepts encoded i n i t can be r e l a t e d i n some coherent way or ways to one another. T h i s means that p r a c t i c a l l y any c o l l e c t i o n of concepts can be i n t e r p r e t e d g i v e n that s u f -f i c i e n t e f f o r t s are made to e s t a b l i s h a p p r o p r i a t e semantic l i n k s amongst the conceptual elements. I n t e g r a t i o n may e n t a i l a d i r e c t l i n k i n g of the concepts by c o n t i g -u i t y , i n d i r e c t l i n k i n g through a mediating element or elements, or b o t h . I f no l i n k i n g can be made the f i g u r e w i l l be p e r c e i v e d as meaningless or u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . While i t i s a necessary c o n d i t i o n , conceptual i n t e g r a -t i o n i s not a s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r a f i g u r e ' s a c c e p t a b i l i t y , s i n c e a degree of q u a l i t y i s a l s o demanded. Such q u a l i t y might be determined on the b a s i s of completeness, or the l e v e l or the number of l e v e l s (or dimensions) of the i n t e g r a t i o n , but i t seems l i k e l y that judgement of f i g u r a l q u a l i t y v a r i e s widely amongst i n d i v i d u a l s , r e l a t i n g perhaps to t h e i r conceptual s t y l e s , preferences f o r complexity or s i m p l i c i t y , and so on. Two e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s touch on the r o l e of s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a t i o n i n f i g u r e e f f e c t i v e n e s s but n e i t h e r d e a l s with i t i n any depth. Chun (1971) r e p o r t e d the r e s u l t s of a study of the e f f e c t s of r o l e demand (accuracy versus thematic o r i e n t a t i o n ) , st imulus m a t e r i a l s ( a b s t r a c t versus f i g u r -a t i v e ) , and p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s ( a e s t h e t i c s e n s i t i v i t y , c o g n i t i v e 13 fluency, and a n a l y t i c a l i t y ) on subjects' f a i l u r e to heed the " a s - i f " or f i g u r a t i v e status of prose passages and subjects' subsequent propensity to r e i f y such figures from the passages. A tendency to r e i f y was correlated p o s i t i v e l y with the "opacity" of the materials (a construct apparently r e f l e c t i n g the u n f a m i l i a r i t y , abstractness, and ambiguity of the passages), low IQ test scores, low aesthetic s e n s i t i v i t y test scores and high idea-t i o n a l fluency. Chun suggested that further examination of the e f f e c t i v e dimensions of opacity was required. This i s e s s e n t i a l l y what the present study undertakes. Koen (1965) showed that adults would r e l i a b l y complete f i g u r a t i v e expressions by choosing from a pair of words i n a sentence the one with associative meaning closest to that of a given set of cue words. How-i ever, Koen did not examine the structural basis of t h i s word association response (cf. P o l l i o , 1966). The a b i l i t y to use and explicate different conceptual structures i s 3 normally linked to age and maturity. Asch (1958), Asch and Nerlove (1960), and Gardner (1974) reported studies with children aged three to twelve years that revealed a developmental trend i n the a b i l i t y to com-prehend and explain certain "double-function" words such as "hard" and "bright". Apparently, the physical sense of such words i s acquired e a r l i e s t and the psychological sense l a t e r as an independent homonymic vocabulary item, while recognition of the polysemous nature of the words occurs at a s t i l l l a t e r stage. P o l l i o and P o l l i o (1974) pointed out that the terms apparently used i n these investigations involved only frozen (dead) figures rather than novel ones. Consequently, both the physical 3 When this inquiry was begun only a few empirical studies had taken a developmental approach to f i g u r a t i v e language. 14 and p s y c h o l o g i c a l senses of such words are p a r t of the normal d i c t i o n a r y e n t r i e s f o r the words and may be acquired no d i f f e r e n t l y than the meanings of other polysemous words such as " b a l l " . The P o l l i o ' s own i n v e s t i g a t i o n s examined the p r o d u c t i o n of f i g u r -a t i v e language by t h i r d , f o u r t h and f i f t h grade students. Using judges t r a i n e d to r e l i a b l y d i s c r i m i n a t e amongst l i t e r a l , frozen and n o v e l e x p r e s -sions they observed that p r o d u c t i o n of frozen f i g u r e s was u n c o r r e l a t e d with the p r o d u c t i o n of novel f i g u r e s , but that the p r o d u c t i o n of both i n c r e a s e d over grades and v a r i e d according to task demands. Comparing t h e i r f i n d i n g s with those of Asch and Nerlove they concluded "that c h i l -dren i n the stage of concrete o p e r a t i o n s are able to use f r o z e n and n o v e l f i g u r a t i v e language w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c context but may be unable to e x p l i c a t e the use of such language i n completely a b s t r a c t terms u n t i l they move from the stage of concrete operations to the stage of formal o p e r a t i o n s " (p. 200). T h i s l a t t e r stage i s normally encountered i n e a r l y to middle adolescence and i s marked by the a b i l i t y to perform l o g i c a l operations i n the absence of concrete examples and by a p s y c h o l o g i c a l " c e n t e r i n g " on or preference f o r t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l mode of f u n c t i o n i n g . Groesbeck (1961) reported an i n c r e a s e over grades three to f i v e i n the number of f i g u r e s found i n c h i l d r e n ' s school texts and a l s o r e p o r t e d that c h i l d r e n i n these grades can p r o f i t from i n s t r u c t i o n i n f i g u r a t i v e language. Leondar (1968) suggested an important l i m i t a t i o n i n t h i s e a r l y use of f i g u r a t i v e language: D e s s o i r . . . mentions a youngster who, on f i r s t seeing f a l l i n g snow, exclaimed " l o o k at the b u t t e r f l i e s p l a y i n g t o g e t h e r . " Such an i n a d v e r t a n t trope demonstrates, not the i n v e n t i v e n e s s of the c h i l d ' s i m a g i n a t i o n , but the poverty of h i s v o c a b u l a r y . Only when h i s conception of b u t t e r f l i e s i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d e l i m i t e d to exclude snowflakes can he yoke these terms m e t a p h o r i c a l l y . H i s 15 production of metaphor waits on h i s a c q u i s i t i o n of a supply of s t a b l e , l i t e r a l , and s o c i a l l y sanctioned c a t e g o r i e s . I f metaphor c o n t r i b u t e s to the development of e a r l y language, i t i s as metaphor encountered. Metaphor created would appear to be a l a t e r and s u r e l y more complex achievement. (pp. 172-173) " f i g u r a t i v e " language i n the very young may be simple g e n e r a l i z -a t i o n — t h a t i s , not metaphor at a l l . (Leondar, 1968, p. 220) A c q u i s i t i o n of normal semantic c a t e g o r i e s and the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e formal operations are t h e r e f o r e l i k e l y to be p r e r e q u i s i t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r the thorough comprehension of f i g u r e s of speech. In order to e s t a b l i s h the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of the metonymic/ synecdochic/metaphoric trichotomy i t was necessary to observe systematic d i f f e r e n c e s i n responses to (or production of) f i g u r e s i n c o r p o r a t i n g those s t r u c t u r e s . Because of time l i m i t a t i o n s and because the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of f i g u r a t i v e language depend upon knowing i t s e f f e c t s upon human responses, only response measures were considered i n t h i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n . Of the many p o s s i b l e measures (e.g., c f . A n g l i n , 1970; C o l l i n s & Q u l l l i a n , 1969; Creelman, 1966; Fillenbaum & Rapoport, 1971; Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957; P a i v i o , 1971b; P e r f e t t i , 1972) three appeared to be both important and p r a c t i c a l — r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension. R e c a l l of m a t e r i a l s can be assessed e i t h e r by r e c o r d i n g the extent of f r e e or spontaneous r e c o l l e c t i o n , or by cueing r e c a l l w i t h some m a t e r i a l p r e v i o u s l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . While f r e e r e c a l l would provide a more accurate assessment of complete f i g u r e memorability, i t would a l s o be a more d i f f i c u l t task and one h i g h l y s u s c e p t i b l e to recency and primacy e f f e c t s ( W i l kinson, Note 2). Randomized cued r e c a l l g r e a t l y reduces these e f f e c t s and, t h e r e f o r e , was chosen as the method f o r measuring r e c a l l i n t h i s study. Figures embodying metonyms and synecdoches were expected to be easier to r e c o l l e c t than those embodying metaphors because of the more common, and consequently stronger, associations between the two terms making up the figures. Because the contiguity relationship involves less abstraction than the hierarchic one i t was expected that the r e c a l l of metonyms would also surpass that of synecdoches. To the extent that the s i m i l a r i t y between the two concepts could be scaled i t was also expected that figures composed of highly similar concepts would be more readily recalled than those composed of less similar concepts because the associations between the highly similar concepts would be more extensive, and consequently stronger, than those between less similar ones. Measuring the extent to which figures of speech are l i k e d taps emotive as well as cognitive responses to the figures. Psychologists have only a modest understanding of what happens neurologically when some-thing i s l i k e d . The work of Berlyne and others (Anderson, 1964; Berlyne, 1970; Berlyne, Craw, Salapetek & Lewis, 1963; Berlyne & Boudewijus, 1971; Berlyne, Note 3) suggests that items which are l i k e d stimulate an optimal l e v e l of c o r t i c a l arousal. Disliked items have either i n s u f f i c i e n t arousal potential or are overly arousing. This explanation f i t s well with t r a d i t i o n a l discussions about the range of effective metaphorical predications. For example, Thomas (1969) argued that a combination of highly d i s s i m i l a r concepts i n a metaphor i s d i s -l i k e d , as i s a combination of concepts that are semantically too s i m i l a r . Koen (1965) observed that synaesthetic metaphors were considered by under-graduates to be better figures of speech than metaphors i n which the semantic s h i f t remained within a single sense modality. I t appears that only moderately d i f f e r i n g concepts combined i n metaphorical r e l a t i o n can produce the appropriate arousal l e v e l to be judged as pleasing. In t h i s 17 study, figures with two components that were moderately s i m i l a r were expected to receive higher l i k e a b i l i t y scores than figures comprised of ei t h e r highly s i m i l a r or greatly d i s s i m i l a r concepts. Since s i m i l a r i t y judgements can be made of concepts set together for reasons other than the degree of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y , i t was expected that s i m i l a r i t y e f f e c t s would be observable across a range of structures, including those based upon the contiguity or hierarchy between the concepts involved, although i t was anticipated that such e f f e c t s might be masked by the c o n f l i c t i n g s t r u c -tures. Comprehension poses some s p e c i a l problems. While the understand-ing of frozen f i g u r e s , proverbs, r i d d l e s , etc. can be assessed much as the understanding of any other normalized l i n g u i s t i c pattern, there i s no way of judging when a novel f i g u r e i s c o r r e c t l y comprehended since, i n p r i n c i p l e , there e x i s t s no normative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f or such a f i g u r e . Even f o r s e m i - t r a d i t i o n a l figures l i k e (20) d u l l roots ( E l i o t , 1961, p. 51) (21) dry b r a i n ( E l i o t , 1961, p. 33) (22) the r i v e r ' s tent i s broken ( E l i o t , 1961, p. 58) (23) When the evening i s spread out against the sky Like a patient etherised upon a table ( E l i o t , 1961), p. 11) experts would be hard pressed to agree upon correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s or adequate comprehension. With simpler f i g u r a t i v e constructions agreement as to the major meanings may be more r e a d i l y forthcoming, even i f a singular meaning cannot be determined. Furthermore, i f guiding p r i n c i p l e s can be determined for e s t a b l i s h i n g several acceptable a l t e r n a t i v e meanings of such figures we can then begin to examine the quality of understanding rather than the mere presence or absence of understanding. For figures comprised of two concepts the r e l a t i o n a l functions already d i s c u s s e d — s i m i l a r i t y , contiguity and hierarchy—provide such guiding pri n c i p l e s for the establishment of alternative meanings. Using this system, a comprehension question for example (11) might appear as follows: "An answer i s a problem" means that an answer and a problem (a) both produce further questions (major s i m i l a r i t y ) (b) are often found together (contiguity) (c) are parts of tests (hierarchy) (d) are both composed of ideas (minor s i m i l a r i t y ) . Each of these options provides an integration of the two nominals i n the figure. Since s i m i l a r i t y of spatio-temporal location, i . e . , contiguity, seems to be one of the more salient of s i m i l a r i t i e s and to involve minimal abstraction i t was expected that contiguity-based responses would be the more rudimentary and the ones displayed i n greater proportion by people at e a r l i e r stages of cognitive development. Consequently, i t was expected that students i n lower grades would interpret figures more often on the basis of contiguity than would students i n higher grades. Cate-g o r i c a l and h i e r a r c h i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e s are more commonly encountered i n normal usage than those based upon a variety of other features or dimen-sions, and so there i s reason to believe that comprehension of the l a t t e r would emerge only at a l a t e r stage of development. Consequently, students i n higher grades were expected to make more response choices on the basis of these less common s i m i l a r i t i e s than students i n lower grades, and 19 correspondingly fewer h i e r a r c h i c responses. I t was also expected that contiguity-based and hierarchy-based responses would be higher for meto-nyms and synecdoches, r e s p e c t i v e l y , across a l l grade l e v e l s . Since the category "metaphor" encompasses figures formed on s i m i l a r i t i e s on a v a r i e t y of dimensions, i t constitutes a sort of r e s i d u a l class to which responses were expected to be more v o l a t i l e and le s s predictable than for the other two. In summary, i t was conjectured that metonymic, synecdochal and metaphoric r e l a t i o n s between two concepts represent in c r e a s i n g l y complex structures that would, as a r e s u l t , be i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t both to r e c a l l and to understand. L i k i n g of figures of t h i s sort was expected.to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with t h e i r comprehension, although moderate s i m i l a r i t y of combined elements was expected to produce the most l i k e a b l e f i g u r e s . For figures of thought or speech involving more than two concepts integrated and non-integrated i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be offered as a l t e r n a t -ive meanings, although the conceptual r e l a t i o n s involved i n the integra-t i o n cannot be s p e c i f i e d e a s i l y . Options for a comprehension question for (24) Ignorance interviews the jungle might include: (a) jungle dwellers should t a l k to trees (concrete, not integrated) (b) there's a l o t to be learned about jungles (concrete, integrated) (c) interviewers prefer t r o p i c a l climates (abstract, not integrated) (d) a f o o l i s h person t r i e s to do the impossible (abstract, integrated). Option (c) integrates the verb and second nominal but not the f i r s t nominal. Options (b) and (d) integrate the three components by t r a n s l a t i n g them into other planes of discourse, one r e l a t i v e l y concrete and the other more 20 abstract. Option (a) may actually integrate the three concepts at a concrete l e v e l , but for most adults at l e a s t , i t i s more l i k e l y to appear as a shallow, p r e j u d i c i a l or inept integration. Adeptness at conceptual integration was assumed to increase concurrently with cognitive develop-ment. Consequently, i t was expected that the integrated interpretations would be chosen more often by students i n higher grades than by students i n lower grades. 2. An Imagery Hypothesis It i s a well established behavioral law that the use of mental images to represent and integrate verbal materials enhances r e c o l l e c t i o n of those materials (Paivio, 1971a, 1971b). What i s not clear i s the nature of the imagery process, and debate and research continue as efforts are made to determine whether verbal and v i s u a l information are both stored i n an abstract, modality-free form (Anderson & Bower, 1973), i n separate but interconnected systems each specialized for representing a p a r t i c u l a r kind of input (Bower, 1972; Paivio, 1971b, 1975; Paivio, Note 1) or i n a combination of such systems (Bartram, 1974; Chase & Clark, 1972; Clark, Carpenter & Just, 1973). While the terms themselves tempt one to equate " f i g u r a t i v e thought" and"mental imagery", the former term seems best retained as a broader concept that can include anomalous expressions involving l i t t l e or no mental imagery. Furbank (1970) s i m i l a r l y argues for retention of a d i s t i n c t i o n between the l i t e r a r y senses of "metaphor" and "image", a d i s -t i n c t i o n that i s frequently blurred i n popular usage. Based on the results of the p i l o t study (Wilkinson, Note 2) and numerous paired-associate learning studies (Paivio, 1971b), i t was predicted with considerable confidence that high imagery figures, regardless of the 21 Interpretation given to the imagery, would be more readily recalled than low imagery figures. Furthermore, i t can be argued that high imagery-inducing materials more quickly evoke a s a t i s f y i n g l e v e l of cognitive arousal than do low imagery-inducing materials. Although appropriately structured low imagery figures might produce as much arousal as high imagery ones, the low associative meaningfulness which frequently accom-panies abstractness (Paivio, 1971b) would, on the whole, be expected to depress the extent of the arousal, while the non-synchronous line a r proces-sing required for abstract s t i m u l i (Paivio, 1975) would delay activation of the arousal. This r e l a t i v e depression and delay of arousal for low imagery materials would result i n them being less likeable than high imagery materials. Consequently, for this study, the greater the number of high imagery constituents i n a figure the greater was i t s expected l i k e a b i l i t y . The possible relationship between imagery and comprehension was unclear, so on t h i s topic the investigation was exploratory. Tentative l i n k s between the order of high and low imagery constitu-ents and f i g u r a t i v e expression come from Davidson (Note 4) and Thomas (1969) who independently suggest that successful metaphors are generally those which hypostatize or concretize the abstract. While t h i s i s c l e a r l y not the case for a l l types of figures, for example (16) cruel kindness or (25) less i s more, hypostatization may s t i l l be an important function i n some figures. Neither Davidson nor Thomas, however, suggest why or how hypostatization might work i t s effects. Under the hypostatization argument i t was expected that figures formed from low-high pairs of terms, l i k e 22 (26) Welfare i s food or (27) Hatred i s a g l u t t o n would be p r e f e r r e d over those formed from high- low imagery p a i r s , such as (28) A w a l l i s an entry or (29) A horse i s an e c c e n t r i c . A p p l i c a t i o n of the same argument to the comprehension task suggested the same o r d e r , although i t was d i f f i c u l t to see why the understanding of a f i g u r e should be a f f e c t e d by e i t h e r the number or order of i t s h i g h and low imagery c o n s t i t u e n t s . P a i v i o (1971b) argued that high- low imagery word p a i r s y i e l d b e t t e r cued r e c a l l scores than do low-high imagery word p a i r s because a h i g h imagery cue i s more r e a d i l y stored i n , and r e t r i e v e d from, a c o g n i t i v e imagery system than i s a low imagery cue, and thus serves as a b e t t e r mneumonic device or "conceptual peg" to which the response word can be r e l a t e d . T h i s view was independently t e s t e d i n t h i s study. Use of more complex f i g u r e s permitted the examination of imagery i n r e l a t i o n to l i n g u i s t i c form c l a s s e s . Noun imagery had, i n previous r e s e a r c h ( P a i v i o , 1971b), surpassed verb imagery as a p r e d i c t o r of r e c a l l and the same was expected i n t h i s study. These expectations were extended to the l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension measures as w e l l under the b e l i e f that noun-induced images are simpler to s t o r e and process c o g n i t i v e l y than v e r b -induced images. Because they presumably have more advanced c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s , students i n higher grades were expected to d e a l more adequately with low imagery m a t e r i a l s than were students i n lower grades. For comprehension tasks o l d e r adolescents (presumably u s i n g formal operations) were expected to p r e f e r a b s t r a c t over concrete a l t e r n a t i v e s even where both were 23 acceptable. Consequently, both abstract and concrete options were offered for the more complex figures (cf. example (24) on page 19). B. L i n g u i s t i c Approaches Ordinary conversations and writings abound with expressions which deviate from s t r i c t rules of language but which are, nevertheless, i n t e r -preted, being meaningful both to speaker or writer and to addressee. Such deviance may occur within the context of a single sentence or within an aggregate of sentences that may otherwise observe normal rules of discourse. Some of these l i n g u i s t i c deviations are unintentional mala-propisms or lapses of grammar which, upon reception, are commonly i n t e r -preted i n the intended sense, c l a r i f i e d sometimes by l i n g u i s t i c and extra-l i n g u i s t i c context, or, i f feasible, by replies to questions directed to the producer of the deviant strings of words. Other deviations are either c l e a r l y intentional or impossible to do without and i t i s these l a t t e r classes of verbal productions that are considered as figures of speech. More p a r t i c u l a r l y , f i g u r a t i v e language can be i d e n t i f i e d with the presence of se l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n v i o l a t i o n s (Matthews, 1971). Such vio l a t i o n s can be examined both i n t r a d i t i o n a l transformational generative grammars (Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 1968) and i n case grammars (Fillmore, 1968). 1. Selectional R e s t r i c t i o n Violations i n Traditional Transformational  Generative Grammar Matthews' account of metaphor subsumes the figures described by the str u c t u r a l theory as metonyms and synecdoches. He argues, after Chomsky (1965, p. 149) that metaphors are sentences that are ill-formed because of v i o l a t i o n s of what Chomsky called " s e l e c t i o n a l rules" and " s t r i c t subcateg-o r i z a t i o n rules", roughly, semantic and syntactic r e s t r i c t i o n s on the 24 choice of formative f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n i n a given l i n g u i s t i c s truc-ture. Matthews r e f e r s to both of these types of r e s t r i c t i o n s as "s e l e c -t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s " , and argues that "the presence of a s e l e c t i o n a l r e s -t r i c t i o n v i o l a t i o n i s . . . a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t condition for the di s t i n g u i s h i n g of metaphor from non-metaphor" (Matthews, 1971, p. 424). Thus (30) Golf, plays John and (31) John found sad are both metaphors by t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . A sentence l i k e (1) i s not a metaphor i t s e l f but may have an underlying one l i k e (32) The e l d e r l y professor emeritus i s a rock. According to Matthews we are guided i n our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a metaphor both by the metaphor's phrase structure and by the non-metaphoric uses of the constituent words comprising the f i g u r e . The l a t t e r are revealed by examination of the l e x i c a l features of the constituents. Such features are not to be taken as semantic p r i m i t i v e s but as l e x i c a l e n tries which w i l l themselves by " s p e c i f i e d i n turn by features, ad  in f i n i t u m " (Matthews, 1971, p. 419), thus c o n s t i t u t i n g a network of semantic r e l a t i o n s . An examination of l e x i c a l features i n the constituents of a nominal-copula-nominal f i g u r e can be expected to reveal both the s i m i l a r i t i e s between the concepts as stressed i n the s t r u c t u r a l model and the s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n v i o l a t i o n s as stressed by Matthews. Comparing the metaphorical sentence (33) and some associated features with a non-metaphorical sentence with the same phrase structure but d i f f e r e n t features (34), Matthews observes that (33) v i o l a t e s s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s placed upon "man" by "wolf", while (34) v i o l a t e s none of the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed upon "man" by 25 "gentleman". (33) The man +Noun -tcount +concrete + d e f i n i t e +anlmate -hnammal +human -l-adult +adult - K L i n g u i s t i c +bipedal i s a wolf . +Noun -fcount +concrete - d e f i n i t e +animate •fmammal * -human * +quadruped * + t a i l ? +hairy ? +nocturnal ? + v i s c i o u s ? +predatory (34) The man i s a gentleman. -fNoun 4-count +concrete H-animate +human -hnale -l-adult +Noun -l-count +concrete +animate +human -hnale -l-adult -fwell-bred +gracious +eonsiderate Matthews f u r t h e r contends that the features which are most c l o s e l y c o n -nected with the v i o l a t i o n ( i n t h i s case [4-human] or [-human]) are l e s s important i n understanding the metaphor than features not c l o s e l y i n v o l v e d i n the v i o l a t i o n , but he provides no way of determining j u s t which features can be considered as c l o s e l y i n v o l v e d . Matthews' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would view (18) as v i o l a t i n g a s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n imposed by the verb upon the grammatical o b j e c t , and would thus p r o j e c t " s l e e p " as the anomalous 26 term i n the figure. I t was argued previously, however, that t h i s provides only one of several possible interpretations for the figure. Thomas (1969) suggests an analysis almost i d e n t i c a l to that of Matthews but adds that i n the case of a nominal-copula-nominal metaphor "when the features of the two nominals are incompatible, those of the second nominal have predominance over those of the f i r s t " (p. 40). Clearly though, t h i s i s only true for certain selected features and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine a_ p r i o r i just which features w i l l predominate. This account of f i g u r a t i v e language provides a convenient way of construct-ing metaphors and leads to assessment of the effects of specified feature v i o l a t i o n s i n terms of the response variables proposed here. Concrete and abstract, animate and inanimate, and human and non-human subject and object r e s t r i c t i o n s are among the more common ones discussed by l i n g u i s t s (e.g., Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 1968), and appear to comprise the more funda-mental semantic r e s t r i c t i o n s . Since the imagery hypothesis i s based upon the f i r s t of these d i s t i n c t i o n s attention was directed to the second and t h i r d . One of these, however, was considered from a different l i n g u i s t i c viewpoint, that of case grammar. 2. Selectional R e s t r i c t i o n Violations i n Case Grammar The theory just outlined describes metaphor as the v i o l a t i o n of certain types of l i n g u i s t i c r e s t r i c t i o n s . In a " t r a d i t i o n a l " transform-ational grammar, such as that developed by Jacobs and Rosenbaum (1968), these v i o l a t i o n s involve the categories of grammatical subject and gram-matical object, but as Fillmore (1968) points out, these categories obscure important semantic relationships. Thus,.in (35) John broke the window and (36) A hammer broke the window 27 the grammatical subjects are semantically d i s t i n c t and the differences cannot be specified i n terms of subject r e s t r i c t i o n s required by the verb since the verb i s the same i n both cases. Fillmore, therefore proposes an alternate system which he terms a "case" grammar. The case notions comprise a set of universal, presumably innate, concepts which i d e n t i f y certain types of judgements human beings are capable of making about the events that are going on around them, judgements about such matters as who did i t , who i t happened to, and what got changed. The cases that appear to be needed include: Agentive (A), the case of the t y p i c a l l y animate perceived in s t i g a t o r of the action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb. Instrumental ( I ) , the case of the inanimate force or object causally involved i n the action or state i d e n t i f i e d by the verb. Dative (D), the case of the animate being affected by the state or action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb. F a c t i t i v e (F), the case of the object or being res u l t i n g from the action or state i d e n t i f i e d by the verb, or understood as a part of the meaning of the verb. Locative (L), the case which i d e n t i f i e s the location or s p a t i a l orientation of the state or action i d e n t i f i e d with the .verb. Objective (0), the semantically most neutral case, the case of any-thing representable by a noun whose role i n the action or state i d e n t i f i e d by the verb i s i d e n t i f i e d by the semantic interpretation of the verb i t s e l f ; conceivably the concept should be limited to things which are affected by the action or state i d e n t i f i e d by the verb. The term i s not to be confused with the notion of direct object, nor with the name of the surface case synonymous with accusative. Additional cases w i l l surely be needed. (Fillmore, 1968, pp. 24-25) In case grammar, fi g u r a t i v e language w i l l result whenever case r e s t r i c t i o n s are violated. For example, (37) The assumption climbs the tree and (38) The volcano burped both v i o l a t e the agentive requirement of the verb; (39) The man melted vio l a t e s the objective case; (40) The balloon crinkles the a i r vio l a t e s both agentive and objective case r e s t r i c t i o n s ; and 28 (24) Ignorance i n t e r v i e w s the j u n g l e v i o l a t e s both agentive and d a t i v e case requirements. Figures of the nominal-copula-nominal form, as (9) The medium i s the message or a d j e c t i v e and noun, as (16) c r u e l kindness and (3) mustardseed sun represent the complex " e s s i v e " case and r e q u i r e s p e c i a l treatment ( c f . Simmons, 1972). Developed p r i m a r i l y to e x p l a i n l i n g u i s t i c patterns i n n a t u r a l language, n e i t h e r of these l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s was intended to p r e d i c t p s y c h o l o g i c a l responses. Their value would be enhanced, however, i f they could be shown to have p s y c h o l o g i c a l relevance as w e l l as p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c explanatory power. Some research s t u d i e s (e.g., Brown, 1973) i n d i c a t e s that case grammar has good correspondence w i t h the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of young c h i l d r e n . There i s some evidence, too, that semantic fe a t u r e s can p r e d i c t c o g n i t i v e responses to c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . Imagery r a t i n g of terms i s a proven p r e d i c t o r of cued r e c a l l , and high and low imagery r a t i n g s correspond roughly to the B-concrete] and [-concrete] features commonly used i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of l e x i c a l e n t r i e s . I t seems reasonable, t h e r e f o r e , that other semantic features might a l s o have p r e d i c t i v e power. Although n e i t h e r Matthews nor Thomas make any attempt to a s s i g n an order of importance or s a l i e n c y to semantic f e a t u r e s , and although Matthews refuses to c l a i m any p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y at a l l f o r the f e a t u r e system, a study by Howe and H i l l m a n (1973) lends psycho-l o g i c a l credence both to the semantic f e a t u r e theory and to case grammar. From a t r a d i t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c framework, Howe and Hillman examined 29 c h i l d r e n ' s judgements of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of s e m a n t i c a l l y anomalous s t r i n g s of words. They found that c h i l d r e n i n kin d e r g a r t e n through grade 4 recog-n i z e d animate subject v i o l a t i o n s at an e a r l i e r age than animate object v i o l a t i o n s and that s t r i n g s w i t h v i o l a t i o n s of "more i d i o s y n c r a t i c " s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s were acquired at an intermediate stage. Thus, sentences of the type: (41) The s t o r y b e l i e v e d the teacher or (42) The nest b u i l t the b i r d were detected as deviant at an e a r l i e r age than sentences of the type: (43) The grass d r i e d the wind or (44) The baby fed the mother which, i n t u r n , were more e a s i l y detected as deviant than sentences l i k e : (45) The c h i l d r e n pleased the s t o r y or (46) The cowboys warmed the f i r e . Furthermore, a c q u i s i t i o n of a l l r e s t r i c t i o n s occurred at a l a t e r age f o r low-SES c h i l d r e n than f o r upper-SES c h i l d r e n . While there i s some doubt as to whether a l l of the sentences generated by Howe and Hillman as deviant ones are a c t u a l l y deviant given the proper context, f o r example, (43) and (46) above, and (47) The s k i r t cleaned the soap, t h e i r study, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i l l u s t r a t e s t hat the semantic f e a t u r e system can be u s e f u l i n p r e d i c t i n g developmental trends and hence, presumably, i n p r e d i c t i n g the inherent d i f f i c u l t y , even f o r a d u l t s , of c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . U t i l i z i n g the Katz and Fodor (1963) d i s t i n c t i o n of semantic markers and semantic d i s t i n g u i s h e r s , Howe and Hillman describe the sentences i n v o l v i n g s p e c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s as n o n - r e v e r s i b l e by v i r t u e of r e s t r i c t i o n s 30 at the l e v e l of semantic distinguishers and the animate object and animate subject sentences as non-reversible due to r e s t r i c t i o n s at the l e v e l of semantic markers. This d i s t i n c t i o n i s somewhat arb i t r a r y , and thus untenable, as Weinreich (1966) points out, and an alternate explanation i s therefore required for the intermediate d i f f i c u l t y of the special r e s t r i c -t i o n sentences. For the sixteen examples cited by Howe and Hillman (1973, p. 134) case grammar provides such an explanation. The animate subject sentences are predominantly of the form Agent-Action-Object, while the animate object sentences are predominantly Instrumental-Action-Dative. The special r e s t r i c t i o n sentences represent a variety of Agent-Aetion-Object, Instrumental-Action-Object, and Agent-Action-Dative types. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the r e c a l l , evaluation and comprehension of more complex figures of speech may be predictable on the basis of which case arguments are viola t e d , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , that objective case v i o l a t i o n s w i l l be comprehended more readily and at a younger age than dative case v i o l a t i o n s . I f i t i s assumed that r e c a l l , l i k i n g and comprehension of language i s biased by anthropocentrism as Howe and Hillman's study suggests, i t can be predicted that v i o l a t i o n s of [-human] and [-animate] features w i l l produce the most s t r i k i n g psychological effects because of the greater attention given to those features. The vi o l a t i o n s happen to correspond, roughly, to personification and animism (or animation), two common and popular forms of figu r a t i v e thought. I t seems u n l i k e l y , however, that just any personification or animism would be l i k e d , but only those i n which there i s an appropriate relationship between terms. Hence, animism and personification were expected to be preferred f i g u r a l forms only within 31 bounds prescribed by the st r u c t u r a l quality of the relationship. Within high imagery metaphors with moderate inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y personifica-tions and animations were expected to be preferred, but within other figures there was less reason to expect differences between them and other types. Examination of animation can be pursued i n case grammar by systemat-i c a l l y v i o l a t i n g agentive and dative cases and comparing the effects of these v i o l a t i o n s with those obtained by v i o l a t i n g cases with inanimate referents. Here, too, moderate and appropriate v i o l a t i o n were expected to determine preferred figures by producing optimal cognitive arousal, and lower levels of v i o l a t i o n to predict comprehension and r e c a l l performance by maintaining normal cognitive l i n k s . Adolescents i n higher grades were expected to supercede those i n lower grades i n comprehension of a l l types of v i o l a t i o n s . C. Limitations of Hypotheses, Interactions and Related Measures The four hypotheses discussed here represent four ways of thinking about f i g u r a t i v e thought, four ways of dividing the observable phenomena of expression so as to i n f e r the unobservable processes that underlie them. Although developed independently here i t i s unlikely that any of the hypo-theses alone can account adequately for responses to fi g u r a t i v e expressions. Imagery, for instance, can give no account of how more abstract figures operate, and so a verbal or cognitive hypothesis needs to be invoked for r a t i o n a l i z i n g response differences amongst abstract figures. Likewise, case grammars, i n t h e i r present state of development, can neither explain nor predict responses to subtler semantic v i o l a t i o n s as i n (48) The idea melted where "idea" violates none of the l i s t e d case r e s t r i c t i o n s for the verb 32 "melted" yet i s , nevertheless, unacceptable, or as i n Weinreich's (1966) example: (49) Mice chase cats. As has been pointed out, grammatical subject and object categories also obscure important semantic r e l a t i o n s , and the s t r u c t u r a l theory, too, provides only a most general handling of more complex f i g u r e s . A theory which would integrate the strengths of each of the hypotheses used here would thus be most valuable. In a sense the s t r u c t u r a l hypothesis i s the more general of the four considered here since the i n t e g r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s that i t s p e c i f i e s ( s i m i l a r i t y , c o n t i g u i t y , hierarchy) can apply v a r i o u s l y to images, l e x i c a l e n t r i e s , case categories and other s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s . What i t does not do yet, but p o t e n t i a l l y could do, i s incorporate that vast range of r e l a -tions represented by verbals i n l i n g u i s t i c systems. The l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses can, therefore, be seen as extensions and refinements of a more general theory of s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s . The imagery hypothesis seems completely compatible with the s t r u c -t u r a l hypothesis and amenable to being subsumed within i t . Two mental images can be contiguous to one another i n time, can be assessed of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y , can be integrated into a whole and can even be conceived i n h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to one another as, for example, i f we imagine a cat and a c l a s s to which i t belongs, such as the class of animals, possibly v i s u a l i z e d as a c o l l e c t i o n of various animals. In addition, some of the s t r u c t u r a l concepts themselves, notably hierarchy, are r e a d i l y conceived i n a graphic way. What the imagery hypothesis uniquely provides i s an explanation of our rapid way of dealing with synchronously organized structures. What the s t r u c t u r a l system does i s provide a p r i m i t i v e 33 geometry for the imaginal system. Ultimately, the adequate explanation of f i g u r a t i v e language rests upon thorough l o g i c a l and psycho-logical explor-ations and mappings of semantic space, tasks l i k e l y to e n t a i l an extensive expansion and systematization of existing semantic categories (e.g., Maranda & Kongas Maranda, Note 5; Maranda, Taylor & Flynn, Note 6). At t h i s early stage of theoretical development effects of i n t e r -actions amongst the various f a c t o r s — s t r u c t u r e , imagery, features and case relations—were extremely d i f f i c u l t to anticipate. As a r e s u l t , the only s p e c i f i c interaction for which there were a. p r i o r i expectations was that r e l a t i n g to high imagery metaphors. The expectation was that those high imagery metaphors which had moderate s i m i l a r i t y between their components would be better l i k e d than those with either more or less s i m i l a r i t y . A number of studies had examined semantic s i m i l a r i t y with a method different from that used here, namely, by observing reaction time to judge-ments about word relations (Collins & Q u i l l i a n , 1969, 1972; Rips, Shoben, and Smith, 1973; Rumelhart & Abrahamson, 1973; Schaeffer & Wallace, 1970). The relations so examined are commonly hi e r a r c h i c a l as, for example, amongst the terms "animal", " b i r d " and "robin", and reaction times to statements l i k e "A robin i s a b i r d " or "A robin i s an animal" are taken as a measure of the distance beween the terms i n an abstract semantic space. Mathemat-i c a l techniques can then be applied to examine the i m p l i c i t structures of relations for a given c o l l e c t i o n of words. The same mathematical tech-niques (multidimensional scaling and h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering analyses) can be applied to other measures of semantic s i m i l a r i t y (Anglin, 1970; Fillenbaum & Rapoport, 1971; Henley, 1969; Storm, 1975) to reveal r e l a -tions amongst terms. In the case of fi g u r a t i v e language there need be less concern about the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s amongst many words than about those 34 between a few words. That i s , concern i s for a vector of semantic distances between two concepts along several dimensions. These various investigations of rea c t i o n time generally revealed structures that accord with i n t u i t i o n about the terms involved (at l e a s t i n the case of a d u l t s ) . Since a v a r i e t y of measures of s i m i l a r i t y y ielded s i m i l a r structures i t appeared unnecessary to introduce reaction time experiments into the proposed study but to use instead subjective judgements of s i m i l a r i t y . Since the study was only concerned with pa i r s of words, no mathematical analysis of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s was considered necessary. The c o n t r o l l e d f actors and c r i t e r i a l measures used i n t h i s study were selected from the many measures of verbal materials that have been shown to be p r e d i c t i v e of human response to such materials. Measures such as rated meaningfulness (m), rated f a m i l i a r i t y (fj) , and objective frequency of occurrence (F) within a given corpus have been the most commonly studied ( C a r r o l l , Davies, & Richman, 1971; Pai v i o , 1971b; P a i v i o , Y u i l l e , & Madigan, 1968). The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), which provides measures of emotive meaning of symbolic materials has also been widely used and a v a r i e t y of attempts have been made to construct measures which could supplement the stronger predictors such as imagery. Kintsch's " l e x i c a l complexity" (1972a, 1972b) and Kamman and Streeter's conception of two types of abstractness (1971) f a l l into t h i s category. C l e a r l y , not a l l of these v a r i a b l e s could be manipulated meaning-f u l l y i n a si n g l e study. The var i a b l e s discussed i n the preceding sec-t i o n s , therefore, were chosen to constitute the independent v a r i a b l e s i n the proposed i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Control or randomization of a d d i t i o n a l 35 p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s was attempted wherever f e a s i b l e , but f o r the most par t they were l e f t to vary a r b i t r a r i l y . CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY A. Study I: Nomlnal-Copula-Nominal Figures 1. Design and Materials L i s t 1: Variations i n Structure, Imagery and Semantic Feature  Violations Table I l i s t s the 24 nominal-copula-nominal figures used i n the 3 x 4 x 2 repeated measures design. The f i r s t factor was the r e l a t i o n -ship between the nominals (metonymic, synecdochic, or metaphoric); the second factor represented four possible combinations of high (I > 4.0) and low (J. < 4.0) imagery pairs; the th i r d factor separated figures involving human features i n the second concept from those involving a l l other features. With the exception of items 14 and 16, a l l of those involving human features involved personification (that i s , v i o l a t i o n of the [-human] feature of the f i r s t , nominal). Items 14 and 16 involved personification only i n the l o g i c a l l y t r i v i a l sense since i n each case the f i r s t nominal was already personified (that i s , marked by the [+human] feature). A l l nouns for the items were chosen from a . l i s t of 2,448 words provided by Paivio (Note 7). The nouns used had moderate f a m i l i a r i t y ratings (2.5 < f_ < 7.0) and represented what was i n t u i t i v e l y judged to be a wide range of interconcept s i m i l a r i t i e s . Four types of responses were recorded for each i t e m — r e c a l l , l i k i n g , comprehension, and inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y scores. 36 37 TABLE I Properties of the Nominal-copula-nominal Figures ( L i s t 1) Item Figure Structural Concept Semantic Relation Imagery a Features*3 1 An answer i s a problem. Metonym LL 0 2 A cost i s a patron. LL H 3 Negligence i s poverty LH 0 4 Evidence i s a criminal. LH H 5 A wall i s an entry. HL 0 6 A building i s a creator. HL H 7 A ship i s an ocean. HH 0 8 A do l l a r i s a banker. HH H 9 A quantity i s a bonus. Synecdoche LL 0 10 Deceit i s a charlatan. LL H 11 Welfare i s food. LH 0 12 Wisdom i s a monk. LH H 13 A book i s a reminder. HL 0 14 An owner i s a wholesaler. HL H 15 Winter i s snow. HH 0 1 1 6 A minstrel i s a musician. HH H 17 An obsession i s a franchise . Metaphor LL 0 18 Chance i s an originator. LL H 19 An increment i s a saloon. LH 0 20 Hatred i s a glutton. LH H 21 A s k i l l e t i s a magnitude. HL 0 22 A horse i s an eccentric. HL H 23 A thicket i s a c i t y . HH 0 24 An avalanche i s an acrobat. HH H aL=low; H=high. 0=other than human; H=human. 38 Items were tape-recorded i n different random orders for each of two study and two r e c a l l t r i a l s . The taped instructions which preceded each study t r i a l are transcribed i n Appendix A along with instructions for the other tasks. A seven-point l i k e a b i l i t y rating scale was prepared with the 24 items l i s t e d randomly on a single sheet. The scale ranged from a rating of 1 (DISLIKE VERY MUCH) to a rating of 7 (LIKE VERY MUCH). These terminal scale meanings appeared on the response sheets and intermediate positions were printed on the blackboard as (2) DISLIKE MODERATELY, (3) DISLIKE A LITTLE, (4) NEITHER LIKE NOR DISLIKE, (5) LIKE A LITTLE, (6) LIKE MODER-ATELY. The l i k e a b i l i t y rating scale for L i s t 1 appears as Appendix B. A comprehension scale was developed according to the structural p r i n c i p l e s outlined previously. The o r i g i n a l items were examined independently by three graduate students and some ambiguities thereby removed. Items and options were randomly ordered and mimeographed i n a four-page booklet. A separate glossary containing meanings for the more d i f f i c u l t words i n the figures was prepared for use with the comprehension scale. The comprehension scale and glossary for L i s t 1 are reproduced as Appendices C and D. A 5-point rating scale was also developed for assessing the s i m i l -a r i t y between the concepts i n L i s t 1. Ratings ranged from VERY LOW (1), through LOW (2), MODERATE (3), HIGH (4) to VERY HIGH (5) s i m i l a r i t y . More categories were judged to be meaningless and fewer to lack discriminatory power. The inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y rating scale i s provided as Appendix E. Appendix F records the random orders of items for the various tasks. 39 L i s t 2: High Imagery Metaphors with Variations i n Inter-Concept S i m i l a r i t y and Semantic Feature Violations A second l i s t using only high imagery nouns was constructed as a hedge against the p o s s i b i l i t y that the abstract nouns of L i s t 1 would screen the expected effects of inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y on l i k e a b i l i t y scores. Table I I shows the 24 figures used i n the 3 x 2 f a c t o r i a l design with four replications within each c e l l . The f i r s t factor was comprised of three levels of inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y established i n t u i t i v e l y by the investigator. For items 1 through 15 and 17 through 20 the second factor separated personifications (violations of the t-human] feature of the f i r s t nominal) from figures en t a i l i n g other types of semantic v i o l a t i o n . For items 16, and 21 through 24 personification occurred only i n the t r i v i a l sense. A l l nouns had a rated imagery, 1, greater than or equal to 4.0. A seven-point l i k e a b i l i t y rating scale similar to that used for L i s t 1 was constructed and mimeographed on a single sheet. This scale appears as Appendix G. 2. Subj ects The abstract nature of the tasks implied that only individuals with r e l a t i v e l y advanced cognitive s k i l l s would be able to cope with them. Consequently, high-school students were sought from r e l a t i v e l y high SES areas. Three grade levels of students from two West Vancouver schools became available. The three levels (grades 8, 9 and 10) permitted a between-groups factor representing academic achievement to be added to the design. This grade control, i t was assumed, would provide a rough indicator of age and developmental l e v e l combined. For the r e c a l l , l i k i n g and comprehension measures 27 grade eight, 50 grade nine and 21 grade ten students from English classes participated i n the study. Inter-concept TABLE I I Properties of the High Imagery Metaphors ( L i s t 2) 40 Controlled Inter-concept Features of Item Figure S i m i l a r i t y Second Concept 1 A cigar i s a shoulder. Low Non-human 2 A mountain i s a strawberry. 3 A fl a s k i s a tower. 4 An iceberg i s a bagpipe. 5 A potato i s a minstrel. Low Human 6 A code i s a henchman. 7 A ship i s a grocer. 8 An apple i s a butler. 9 A c i t y i s a thicket. Moderate Non-human 10 A horse i s an engine. 11 Fingers are tweezers. 12 A tortoise i s a tank. 13 An avalanche i s an acrobat. Moderate Human 14 An accordion i s a singer. 15 An octopus i s a busybody. 16 A soldier i s a butcher. 17 A lobster i s a scorpion. High Non-human 18 A dog i s a cat. 19 A car i s a truck. 20 A typhoon i s a hurricane. 21 A sultan i s a baron. High Human 22 A nun i s a monk. 23 A doctor i s a nurse. 24 A teacher i s a professor. 41 s i m i l a r i t y ratings were obtained from an independent sample of two grade eight English classes comprised of 63 students. Beyond grade, no further subject controls (e.g., sex or school) were introduced, primarily because the main concerns of the study were with task variables. Roughly equal numbers of males and females participated, complete classes being used i n every case. The same 63 grade eight students who provided inter-concept s i m i l -a r i t y ratings for L i s t 1 provided l i k e a b i l i t y ratings for L i s t 2 figures. 3. Procedures  L i s t 1 Data were collected over two class periods spaced from two to seven days apart. In the f i r s t session, each class was given a b r i e f introduc-t i o n to the nature of the study and then asked to l i s t e n to the taped instructions. Questions were then answered, answer sheets for the r e c a l l task distributed and the f i r s t study and r e c a l l t r i a l begun. Answer sheets were collected, new ones distributed and the second study and r e c a l l task conducted. This procedure took between 30 and 40 minutes. Study t r i a l s were spaced with a five-second i n t e r v a l between the end of one item and the beginning of the next. Test t r i a l s consisted of the f i r s t nominal and copula for each item presented at ten-second i n t e r v a l s . Between the study and test t r i a l s subjects were required to count backwards out loud from 50. This counting was also included on the tape for 30 seconds. I t s intent was to minimize effects of short term memory storage. In the second session, classes listened to the taped instructions for the l i k e a b i l i t y rating task and the categories were l i s t e d on the blackboard. The l i k e a b i l i t y rating scales were then dist r i b u t e d , com-pleted and collected. This procedure took about ten minutes. F i n a l l y , 42 the comprehension scale and glossary were distributed, taped instructions played, the example on the front page of the scale completed and the task begun. A l l students were allowed s u f f i c i e n t time to f i n i s h , none requiring more than 20 minutes. The two grade eight classes who completed the s i m i l a r i t y rating scale for L i s t 1 received a verbal introduction and then listened to the taped instructions for the task. The scale was then distributed, com-pleted and collected. These procedures took about f i f t e e n minutes per class. The tasks were presented i n such an order as to ensure equal study time per item for each indi v i d u a l prior to r e c a l l , and to maximize contact with the figures prior to the comprehension task. L i s t 2 Immediately following completion of the s i m i l a r i t y rating scale the two grade eight classes were played the taped instructions for the l i k e -a b i l i t y rating scale and the response categories were written on the black-board. The l i k e a b i l i t y rating scale for L i s t 2 was then dis t r i b u t e d , completed and collected, the procedures again taking about f i f t e e n minutes per class. 4. Scoring Students were credited with the score of 1 for the correct noun on the second r e c a l l test t r i a l and 0 for any other response on that t r i a l including synonyms of the correct noun. Incorrectly spelled words that were s t i l l recognizeable were deemed correct. The l i k e a b i l i t y and s i m i l a r i t y rating scales were scored i n a straightforward manner, each item receiving a score from 1 to 7 and 1 to 5» respectively, and blank records assigned the neutral ratings of 4 and 3, 43 respectively. The comprehension scale was scored i n two ways. I n i t i a l l y , the frequency of choice of each response option for each item was recorded within each grade. For the second scoring, choice of metaphoric options was given more credit than choice of other options because the l i n g u i s t i c frame biased the best meaning toward the metaphoric. Consequently, options based on major s i m i l a r i t i e s between concepts were given the score of 4 and those based on minor s i m i l a r i t i e s the score of 3. Because the l i n g u i s t i c frame also favored the synecdochal interpretation t h i s option was given the score of 2, the metonymic response the score of 1 and absence of response the score of 0. B. Study I I : Nominal-Verb-Nominal Figures with Variations i n Case  Violations and Imagery 1. Design and Materials Table I I I l i s t s the 24 items used i n the 3 x 8 repeated measures design. The f i r s t factor represented three categories of case v i o l a t i o n s : agentive alone, agentive and objective, and agentive and dative. The second factor represented the eight possible combinations of high and low word imagery. Items were constructed from terms with moderate f_ ratings and what was judged to be a wide range of inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y , hierarchic and contiguity r e l a t i o n s . Recall, l i k i n g and comprehension scores were recorded for each item. As i n Study I, instructions (Appendix A) and items were tape-recorded i n various random orders for each of two study and two r e c a l l t r i a l s . A l i k e a b i l i t y rating scale, i d e n t i c a l i n form to that used for L i s t 1, was also constructed for L i s t 3 (Appendix H). 44 TABLE I I I Properties of the Nominal-verb-nominal Figures ( L i s t 3) Case Concept Item Figure Violations Imagery 3 1 Mastery establishes j u s t i c e . Agentive LLL 2 The item indicates the cheese. LLH 3 The agreement speaks the deceit. LHL 4 The s a l t bans the trade. HLL 5 The assumption climbs the tree. LHH 6 The j e l l y obtains the sugar. HLH 7 The basin whimpers the idea. HHL 8 The hammer sketches the lumber. HHH 9 The perception abandons the incident. Agentive LLL 10 The idea permits the sky. and LLH 11 Truth folds the advantage. Objective LHL 12 The piano condemns boredom. HLL 13 The i l l u s i o n tramples the mirage. LHH 14 The lantern attends the c e l l a r . HLH 15 The earth caresses the emotion. HHL 16 The balloon crinkles the a i r . HHH 17 The quality defeats the description. Agentive LLL 18 The estimate f l a t t e r s the cost. and LLH 19 The length cheers the o r i g i n . Dative LHL 20 The decoy encourages the position. HLL 21 Ignorance interviews the jungle. LHH 22 The pebble ousts the r i v e r . HLH 23 The p r a i r i e questions the d i s t i n c t i o n . HHL 24 The d a f f o d i l cripples the shadow. HHH a L = low imagery ra t i n g ; H = high imagery rating. 45 Following the principles of abstraction and integration that had been suggested as fundamental i n the understanding of more complex figures of speech, a multiple choice comprehension scale was developed for the items i n L i s t 3. Items were again examined by three graduate students, improvements incorporated, and both items and options randomized before being mimeographed and combined into a four-page booklet. Again, a separate glossary for the more d i f f i c u l t words was prepared. The compre-hension scale and glossary for L i s t 3 are reproduced as Appendices J and K, and the random orders used i n each task recorded i n Appendix L. 2. Subjects Different students from the same schools as those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n Study I participated i n Study I I . For Study I I , 26 grade eight, 36 grade nine and 17 grade ten students from English classes took part. 3. Procedures Procedures were i d e n t i c a l to those used for the r e c a l l , l i k i n g and comprehension aspects of Study I. Recall test t r i a l s presented only the f i r s t nominal for each item. 4. Scoring Recall, l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension scores were recorded for each indiv i d u a l on each item of L i s t 3 i n a manner similar to that employed for L i s t 1. Recall was only credited when both verb and noun were correctly recalled. Changes of verb tense and p l u r a l i z a t i o n s of nouns were credited. Response options for the comprehension task were weighted as follows: abstract integrated option, 4 points; concrete integrated option, 3 points; abstract non-integrated option, 2 points; concrete non-integrated option,! point; no response, 0 points. CHAPTER IV RESULTS A. Study I Tables IV through V I I d e t a i l the mean r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension scores f o r each grade, s t r u c t u r e , imagery, semantic f e a t u r e and i n t e r - c o n c e p t s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l of the L i s t 1 m a t e r i a l s . The s t a t i s -t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e s d i s p l a y e d i n score d i s t r i b u t i o n s was assessed i n two ways. Because r e c a l l scores f o r i n d i v i d u a l items were discontinuous data (1 or 0) , and because an i n d i v i d u a l item sometimes represented a f a c t o r l e v e l of i n t e r e s t , comparisons amongst c e l l frequen-c i e s were f i r s t assessed non-parametrically w i t h the maximum l i k e l i h o o d X 2 - s t a t i s t i c (Bock, 1975, pp. 551-552; Bock & Yates, 1973). These are reported i n Table V I I I . For the purposes of comparing r e c a l l scores w i t h other measures i t was assumed that a l l scores were drawn from l a r g e r populations of normally d i s t r i b u t e d scores. The v a l i d i t y of t h i s assumption was supported by goodness of f i t t e s t s which i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of scores over a l l f a c t o r s d i d not deviate s i g n i f i c a n t l y from n o r m a l i t y . For r e c a l l , x 2(13) = 13.46, £ > .05; Kolmogorov-Smirnov D_ = .056, £ > .05. For l i k e a b i l i t y , x 2 ( 2 D = 21.31, £ > .05; D = .035, _p_ > .05. For com-prehension, x 2(19) = 29.57, £ > .05; D = .09, £ > .05. For s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , x 2(16) ^ 25.81, £ > .05; D = .05, £ > .05. For comparisons amongst the stimulus f a c t o r s c e l l s i z e s were equal 46 TABLE IV Mean Scores for L i s t 1 Figures by Embedded Structural Relations Structure  C r i t e r i o n Grade Metonym Synecdoche Metaphor Totals R e c a l l 3 8 5.48 4.67 3.52 13.67 9 5.76 5.42 4.32 15.50 10 6.14 5.67 5.33 17.14 A l l Mean 5.76 5.26 4.32 15.35 Grades sd (1.40) (1.33) (1.85) (3.72) L i k e a b i l - 8 35.70 35.11 32.18 103.00 i t y b 9 37.52 36.02 33.66 107.20 10 38.95 36.86 32.71 108.52 A l l Mean 37.33 35.95 33.05 106.33 Grades sd (7.08 (5.47) (6.56) (14.75) Compre- 8 20.92 22.22 25.04 68.18 hension c 9 21.68 22.20 25.40 69.28 10 21.95 22.33 25.81 70.10 A l l Mean 21.53 22.23 25.39 69.15 Grades sd (4.41) (3.41) (3.10) (7.83) Total possible ^Total possible Total possible per c e l l = 8 per c e l l = 56 per c e l l = 32 marginals = 24 marginals = 168 marginals = 96 TABLE V Mean Scores for L i s t 1 Figures by Imagery Levels C r i t e r i o n Grade Imagery Levels LL LH HL HH R e c a l l 3 8 1.44 3.26 3.63 5.33 9 2.10 3.48 4.28 5.64 10 2.05 4.43 5.00 5.67 A l l Mean 1.91 3.62 4.26 5.56 Grades sd (1.30) (1.41) (1.55) (.75) L i k e a b i l - 8 23.92 23.89 25.11 30.07 i t y b 9 25.00 26.62 26.28 29.30 10 24.10 27.05 26.71 30.67 A l l Mean 24.51 25.96 26.05 29.81 Grades sd (4.75) (5.65) (4.83) (6.03) Compre- 8 16.81 17.26 16.96 17.15 hension c 9 17.30 17.46 16.92 17.60 10 17.38 17.38 17.43 17.90 A l l Mean 17.18 17.39 17.04 17.54 Grades sd (2.96) (3.16) (3.54) (2.21) cl Total possible per c e l l = 6 ^Total possible per c e l l = 42 Total possible per c e l l = 24 ^L = low imagery rating; H = high imagery rating TABLE VI Mean Scores for L i s t 1 Figures by Semantic Feature Violations C r i t e r i o n Grade Feature Violations Non-human (0) Human (H) Recall" 8 9 10 7.15 8.38 9.24 6.52 7.12 7.90 A l l Mean Grades sd 8.22 (2.04) 7.12 (2.01) L i k e a b i l -i t y 1 3 8 9 10 51.48 54.42 54.62 51.52 52.78 53.90 A l l Mean Grades sd 53.65 (8.33) 52.67 (8.28) Compre-hension 0 8 9 10 34.15 35.12 34.90 34.04 34.16 35.19 A l l Mean Grades sd 34.81 (4.39) 34.34 (4.86) Total possible ^Total possible Total possible per c e l l = 12 per c e l l = 84 per c e l l = 48 TABLE VII Mean Scores for L i s t 1 Figures by Inter-concept S i m i l a r i t y Inter-concept S i m i l a r i t y  moderately C r i t e r i o n Grade low low high high R e c a l l 3 8 1.92 3.37 3.00 5.37 9 2.48 4.06 3.48 5.48 10 3.43 4.48 3.62 5.62 A l l Mean 2.53 3.96 3.38 5.48 Grades sd (1.59) (1.24) (1.17) (.79) L i k e a b i l - 8 22.30 25.93 25.89 28.89 i t y b 9 23.30 27.62 27.00 29.28 10 22.62 27.00 27.76 31.14 A l l Mean 22.88 27.02 26.86 29.57 Grades sd (5.29) (4.71) (4.65) (6.06) Compre- 8 17.37 16.89 18.11 15.81 hension c 9 17.76 16.74 18.62 16.16 10 18.05 17.19 18.33 16.52 A l l Mean 17.71 16.88 18.42 16.14 Grades sd (2.94) (2.83) (3.15) (3.05) a T o t a l possible per c e l l = 6 ^Total possible per c e l l = 42 Total possible per c e l l = 24 TABLE VIII Non-parametric Analysis of L i s t 1 Recall Data Cells Contrasted Likelihood Component x 2 df 1. Metonyms > synecdoches & metaphors 12.27** 1 2. Synecdoches > metaphors 3.30 1 3. Imagery: HH > (HL,LH,LL) 182.06** 1 4. Imagery: (HL & LH) > LL 48.90** 1 5. Imagery: HL > LH 6.90* 1 6. Features: Non-human > Human 9.18* 1 7. Negative quadratic trend over four s i m i l a r i t y levels 3.13 1 8. Positive l i n e a r trend over four s i m i l a r i t y levels 82.26** 1 Note. Contrasts 1 through 6 are those of theoretical relevance from a f u l l model of 23 orthogonal contrasts amongst response factors across grades. Contrasts 7 and 8 are from a separate analysis using only three orthogonal contrasts. The eight contrasts include the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ones from amongst a l l grade and response factor comparisons. *p_ < .05 **p_ < .01 52 and l a r g e (N = 98) and variances were s u f f i c i e n t l y homogeneous that adjustment (Box, 1954; Myers, 1972) made no change i n the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e l e v a n t F _ - s t a t i s t i c s . Since a l l necessary assumptions were there-f o r e met, scores were subjected to m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of vari a n c e procedures ( F i n n , 1972, 1974). For comparisons between grades d i s t r i b u -t i o n s were assumed to be normal and variances homogeneous. Although c e l l s i z e s were unequal (27, 50, 21), the l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s assumption being v a l i d was improved by the f a i r l y l a r g e sample s i z e of 98. Twenty-one orthogonal c o n t r a s t s amongst the repeated measures were examined across and between grades f o r the i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e . Across grades t h i s a n a l y s i s produced a m u l t i v a r i a t e J_(21,75) = 1039.87, _p_ < .001. L i n e a r and quadratic trends over grade proved to be non-sig-n i f i c a n t , F(21,75) = 1.14 and F(21,75) = .53, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A second m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s using nine orthogonal c o n t r a s t s based on the inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l s of the items was performed on the same data. Across grades there were o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences, F_(9,87) = 1761.14, p_ < .001, but between grades m u l t i v a r i a t e d i f -ferences were again n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t , F = 1.36 and J_ = 1.30 f o r the f i r s t and second Helmert-type c o n t r a s t s between grades, ( i . e . , eight versus nine and ten, and nine versus t e n ) . Fol l o w i n g Hummel and S l i g o (1971) and Fi n n (1974, p. 156) wherever there are s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i v a r i a t e F_ r a t i o s the u n i v a r i a t e F_ r a t i o s f o r each c o n t r a s t were inspected to determine the source of the v a r i a t i o n . These are reported i n Table IX. Although s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a s t s were used, comparison of the non-parametric a n a l y s i s and the analyses of va r i a n c e f o r r e c a l l i n d i c a t e s that the former provides more conservative t e s t s of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of TABLE IX Results of Analyses of Variance for L i s t 1 Reca l l , L i k e a b i l i t y and Comprehension Scores C e l l s Contrasted (combined grades) Re c a l l MS Univariate Analyses L i k e a b i l i t y Comprehension MS F MS F Structure 1. "' Metonyms & synec-doches > metaphors 3 2. Metonyms > Synecdoches 3  Imagery 3. HH > (HL,LH,LL) 4. (HL,LH) > LL 5. HL > LH 563.52 24.50 4,663.02 1,616.37 39.22 57.96*** 13.65*** 423.48*** 215.37*** 21.00*** 5,042.95 26.28*** 4,816.01 93.71*** 185.97 4.91* 48.58 2.02 16,303.02 876.01 .82 51.48*** 10.37** .02 100.01 1.37 .38 .01 11.80 ,73 Semantic Features 6. Non-human > human 119.02 46.61*** S i m i l a r i t y 7. Linear trend (positive) 6,694.89 295.62*** 8. Quadratic t r e n d 0 44.45 19.28*** 94.04 1.59 38,880.70 85.57*** 200.00 3.66 20.66 986.95 202.87 .83 6.33** 6.50** Note. H = high imagery, L = low imagery. For contrasts 1 through 6 m u l t i v a r i a t e F_(21,75) = 1039.87, £ < .0001; for contrasts 7 and 8 multivariate F(9,87) = 1761.14, £ < .0001; d.f. for uni v a r i a t e Fs are (1,95). The d i r e c t i o n of t h i s difference i s reversed for Comprehension. ^For R e c a l l the quadratic trend i s p o s i t i v e ; for Comprehension the trend i s negative. *£ < .05; **£ < .01; ***£ < .001. 54 the effects. Under the analysis of variance assumptions, metonyms and synecdoches were better recalled, as expected, than metaphors, and metonyms better than synecdoches. Also as expected, items composed of high imagery constituents were recalled better than those of low imagery constituents. This was manifested by s i g n i f i c a n t l y increasing-recall scores over low-low (LL), low-high (LH), high-low (HL) and high-high (HH) imagery noun pairs. Presence of human semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s resulted i n lower scores than presence of non-human feature v i o l a t i o n s . Mean inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y ratings ranged from 1.51 for item 21 to 4.40 for item 16. With the 24 items divided evenly into four levels of rated s i m i l a r i t y a s i g n i f i c a n t positive l i n e a r trend appeared i n r e c a l l scores over the four levels from lowest to highest l e v e l of inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y . In the analysis of variance a s i g n i f i c a n t positive quadratic trend i n r e c a l l was also recorded over s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l s . Students consistently reported l i k i n g the metonyms and synecdoches better than the metaphors, and the metonyms better than the synecdoches. Their preference for figures with a preponderance of high imagery components was also s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but type of feature v i o l a -t i o n had no s i g n i f i c a n t effect on l i k e a b i l i t y ratings. L i k e a b i l i t y was also affected by inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l so that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t positive l i n e a r trend over the four cate-gories from low to high s i m i l a r i t y . The anticipated negative quadratic trend did not materialize at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l . On the comprehension scale students proved to be responsive both to the similarity-based meaning encouraged by the copular verb and to the par t i c u l a r conceptual ..relation (contiguity, hierarchy or s i m i l a r i t y ) embedded i n each figure. Table X d e t a i l s the frequency and percentage of 55 TABLE X Frequency and Percentage of Selection of Comprehension Scale Response Options for L i s t 1'Figures Embedded Response Options Conceptual minor major Grade Structure none contiguity hierarchy s i m i l a r i t y s i m i l a r i t y 8 metonym 7 64 31 17 97 synecdoche 5 26 72 22 91 metaphor 8 19 35 29 125 t o t a l f 20 109 138 68 313 n=648 % (3.1) (16.8) (21.3) (10.5) (48.3) 9 metonym 5 121 56 21 197 synecdoche 4 45 150 39 162 metaphor 1 36 90 38 235 t o t a l f 10 202 296 98 594 n=1200 % (.8) (16.8) (24.7) (8.2) (49.5) 10 metonym 1 50 23 11 83 synecdoche 0 14 76 9 69 metaphor 2 10 37 18 101 t o t a l f 3 74 136 38 253 n=504 % (.6) (14.7) (26.9) (7.5) (50.2) A l l metonym 13 235 110 49 377 synecdoche 9 85 298 70 322 metaphor 11 65 162 85 461 t o t a l f 33 385 570 204 1160 n=2352 Note. Underlined figures are those i n expected high frequency c e l l s . 56 selection of each comprehension scale option by grade and by the embedded conceptual structure and i l l u s t r a t e s the overriding tendency for students to give responses based on major s i m i l a r i t i e s to a l l items but especially metaphors, and secondary tendencies to respond on a contiguity basis to metonyms and on a hi e r a r c h i c a l basis to synecdoches. No choice and choices based on minor inter-coneept s i m i l a r i t i e s proved to be less common responses for a l l students. To assess the strength of these tendencies a measure was derived by contrasting the. frequency of responses i n the expected high frequency c e l l with the frequency of responses i n the remaining c e l l s for both s t r u c t u r a l and response option dimensions. x tests of the comparisons resulting from these Kronecker products representing the structure by response option interaction produce the following values: for contiguity response to metonyms compared with other responses, x 2 ( l ) = 82.74, _p_ < .001; for hierarchic response to synecdoches, x 2 ( l ) = 62.65, 2_ < .001; for minor s i m i l a r i t y based responses to metaphors, x 2 ( l ) = 4.58, _p_ < .05; for major s i m i l a r i t y based responses to metaphors, x2(-*-) = 63.46, JD < .001. These figures indicate that the observed responsiveness to the embedded structures i s i n fact s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Again, however, no s i g n i f i c a n t grade differences appeared, although the percentages of contiguity responses to metonyms decreased with grade, and percentages of hierarchic responses to synecdoches and major s i m i l a r i t y responses to metaphors both increased as predicted. These trends are i l l u s t r a t e d i n 4 For example, i n assessing contiguity responses to metonyms the Kronecker product was formed by crossing the vector of structure factor co e f f i c i e n t s (2, -1, -1) with the vector of response option coe f f i c i e n t s (-1, 4, -1, -1, -1). This vector was then used to transform the observed frequencies i n the data matrix for the x 2 - a n a l y s i s . 57 Figure 1. With the metaphorically weighted scoring system thus validated, examination of this kind of comprehension i n l i g h t of the stimulus dimen-sions was possible (Table XI). Metaphors were s i g n i f i c a n t l y better understood than either metonyms or synecdoches combined, and neither of the l a t t e r was superior to the other. Furthermore, neither the imagery levels nor the human semantic features of the constituent nouns had s i g n i f i c a n t effects on figure comprehension. Linear and negative quad-r a t i c trends i n comprehension scores over s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l s , however, were both s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . F i n a l l y , when mean scores for l i k e a b i l i t y , r e c a l l and comprehension were entered as the f i r s t three contrasts, step-down analysis indicated that the effects i n terms of the three measures were r e l a t i v e l y indepen-dent, F(l,95) = 5093.71, £ < .0001, F(l,94) = 10.55, £ < .01, F(l,93) = 120.39, £ < .0001, respectively. Item analyses of the scales (Nelson, 1974) showed them to have moderate in t e r n a l consistency, the Hoyt estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y being .77 for r e c a l l , .71 for l i k e a b i l i t y , .58 for comprehension, and .72 for s i m i l a r i t y . The lowest of these r e f l e c t s the p l u r a l i t y of interpreta-tions acceptable to students on the comprehension scale. L i s t 2 had been designed just i n case the expected negative quad-r a t i c trend i n l i k e a b i l i t y scores over s i m i l a r i t y levels was obscured by other variables such as the variety of embedded str u c t u r a l relations or low imagery figure constituents. L i s t 2 was comprised solely of meta-phors with high imagery constituent nouns. L i k e a b i l i t y scores were found to be distributed normally, x 2 ( i 8 ) = 27.14, £ > .05; D = .12, £ > .05, and across s i m i l a r i t y levels the expected trend was c l e a r l y 58 R e s p o n s e O p t i o n s F i g u r e 1. P e r c e n t a g e o f c a s e s s e l e c t i n g e a c h t y p e o f r e s p o n s e o p t i o n f o r L i s t 1 C o m p r e h e n s i o n S c o r e s present (Table X I ) . The source of a s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i v a r i a t e F_(3,60) of 18.27, _p_ < .0001, was l o c a t a b l e as a negative quadratic trend F_(l,62) = 43.07, _p_ < .001, but there was n e i t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r t rend, F_(l,62) = .07, _p_ > .05, nor e f f e c t due to human semantic f e a t u r e v i o l a -t i o n s , ]?(1,62) = 3.61, _p_ > .05. Figure 2 compares the r e l a t i v e l i k e a b i l -i t y scores of L i s t s 1 and 2 over s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l s . The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the L i s t 2 l i k e a b i l i t y s c a l e was .84, i n d i c a t i n g good i n t e r n a l consistency. B. Study I I Tables X I I through XV summarize the mean r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension scores f o r the nominal-verb-nominal f i g u r e s of L i s t 3. As f o r L i s t 1 both non-parametric and parametric methods (Tables XVI and XVII) were used f o r assessing the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c a l l a b i l i t y . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e c a l l scores again d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a Normal d i s t r i b u t i o n (x 2(9) = 14.66, _p_ > .05) and so the two techniques produced comparable r e s u l t s , w i t h the non-parametric method once again being the more conservative of the two. The l i k e a b i l i t y r a t i n g and comprehension score d i s t r i b u t i o n s were both skewed l e f t , M3 = -.437 and M3 = -1.128 r e s p e c t i v e l y , and were both l e p t o k u r t i c , = 1.89 and = 2.15 r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n d i c a t i n g that the f i g u r e s were g e n e r a l l y w e l l l i k e d and w e l l comprehended. The skew and peakedness of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n the x 2 - t e s t s i n d i c a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t departures from Normality but the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t s i n d i c a t i n g n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t departures ( f o r l i k e a b i l i t y , x2(16) = 29.54, £ < .05; D = .09, _p_ > .05; f o r comprehension, x 2 ( l ? ) = 38.72, £ < .01; p_ = .09, _p_ > .05). Since variances were r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous and the TABLE XI L i k e a b i l i t y Scale Mean Scores f o r L i s t 2 Figures C o n t r o l l e d Semantic Features Inter-concept of Second S i m i l a r i t y  Concept low medium high t o t a l Non-human Mean 15.49 18. 11 14.11 47 .71 sd (5.04) (4. 66) (4.28) (10 .0) Human Mean 13.48 17. 35 15.13 45 .95 sd (3.74) (5. 13) (4.26) (9 .34) T o t a l Mean 28.97 35. 46 29.24 93 .67 sd (7.52) (8. 32) (7.58) (17 .94) Note. T o t a l po s s i b l e score per c e l l = 28 61 R e l a t i v e L i k e a b i l i t y Score I l I 1 _ L _ low mod. med. mod. nigh low high S i m i l a r i t y Levels F i g u r e 2. Comparison of R e l a t i v e L i k e a b i l i t y Scores at d i f f e r e n t s i m i l a r i t y l e v e l s f o r L i s t s 1 and 2 ( R e l a t i v e L i k e a b i l i t y = Mean observed l i k e a b i l i t y score * maximum p o s s i b l e l i k e a b i l -i t y score x 100) TABLE XII Mean Scores for L i s t 3 Figures by Case Violations Cases Violated  C r i t e r i o n Grade A A+0 A+D Totals R e c a l l 3 8 1.54 1.96 1.27 4.77 9 1.72 2.08 1.19 5.00 10 1.76 2.53 2.00 6.29 A l l Mean 1.67 2.13 1.39 5.20 Grades sd (1.06) (1.35) (1.35) (2.83) L i k e a b i l -i t y 0 8 9 10 28.50 31.88 29.67 34.53 35.00 39.65 31.50 91.88 33.33 97.53 39.53 114.18 Comprehen-s i o n 0 A l l Mean 30.43 34.76 34.06 99.25 Grades sd (7.21) (8.01) (7.98) (20.72) 8 23.31 26.08 27.31 76.69 9 24.22 27.22 25.39 76.83 10 26.12 27.60 28.23 82.06 A l l Mean 24.33 26.95 26.63 77.91 Grades sd .(3.42) (3.79) (3.36) (8.29) Note. A = Agentive case, 0 = objective case, D = Dative case. a T o t a l possible per c e l l = 8; marginals = 24 b„ c Total possible per c e l l = 56; marginals = 168 Total possible per c e l l = 32; marginals = 96 TABLE X I I I Mean R e c a l l Scores f o r L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels Component Imagery Grade A l l Grades Levels 8 9 10 Mean sd LLL .04 .22 .18 .15 (.46) LHL .00 .14 .23 .11 (.36) LLH .38 .39 .82 .48 (.55) LHH .69 .53 .76 .63 (.74) HLL .62 .72 .88 .72 (.68) HHL .50 .30 .35 .38 (.56) HLH .85 1.08 1.06 1.00 (.90) HHH 1.69 1.61 2.00 1.72 (.93) Note. T o t a l p o s s i b l e per c e l l = 3 TABLE XIV L i k e a b i l i t y Scale Mean Scores for L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels Component Imagery Grade < Levels 8 9 10 Mean LLL 11. 08 11. 47 14. 24 11. 94 (3. 93) LHL 9. 46 10. 17 13. 65 10. 68 (3. 64) LLH 11. ,42 11. 72 13. 06 11. 91 (2. ,86) LHH 12. ,23 13. 53 16. ,12 13. ,66 (4. .37) HLL 11, .54 11. 72 13. .12 11. ,96 (3. .30) HHL 10, .15 10. 64 13, .18 11, .02 (4, .26) HLH 12 .92 13. ,53 14, .24 13, .48 (3 .97) HHH 13 .08 14. .75 16 .59 14 .59 (4 .40) Note. Total possible per c e l l = 21 TABLE XV Comprehension Scale Mean Scores for L i s t 3 Figures by Component Imagery Levels Component A l l Imagery Grade Grades Levels 8 9 10 Mean sd LLL 9.81 10.11 11.06 10.22 (1.65) LHL 9.73 9.33 10.12 9.63 (1.88) LLH 9.12 8.64 8.76 8.82 (1.57) LHH 10.46 10.83 11.00 10.75 (1.58) HLL 9.81 9.47 10.88 9.88 (2.02) HHL 7.85 8.42 9.29 8.42 (1.80) HLH 9.96 10.22 11.00 10.30 (1.91) HHH 9.96 9.80 9.94 9.89 (1.90) Note. Total possible per c e l l = 12 TABLE XVI Non-parametric Analysis of L i s t 3 Recall Data Likelihood Cells Contrasted Component x 2 df 1. Two case v i o l a t i o n s > one v i o l a t i o n .00 1 2. Objective i case > dative case 3.16 1 3. Imagery A: (LHH,HLH,HHL,HHH) > (LLL,LLH,LHL,HLL) 61.37** 1 4. Imagery B: HHH > (LHH,HLH,HHL) 119.70** 1 5. Imagery C: HLH > (LHH,HHL) 17.06** 1 6. Imagery D: LHH > HHL 8.71* 1 7. Imagery E: (HLL,LHL,LLH) > LLL 11.36** 1 8. Imagery F: (HLL,LLH) > LHL 12.07** 1 9. Imagery G: HLL > LLH 2.00 1 Note. These nine contrasts are those of most theoretical interest from a f u l l model of 23 orthogonal contrasts. *£ < .05 **£ < .01 TABLE XVII R e s u l t s of Analyses of Variance for L i s t 3 R e c a l l , L i k e a b i l i t y and Comprehension Scores U n i v a r i a t e Analyses  C e l l s Contrasted R e c a l l 3 L i k e a b i l i t y 3 Comprehension b (combined grades) MS F ( l , 7 6 ) MS F ( l , 7 6 ) MS F ( l , 7 6 ) Case 1. Two v i o l a t i o n s > one v i o l a t i o n 2. 84 .47 5008.11 42.24*** 1915.46 43. i o * * * 2. O b j e c t i v e > d a t i v e 44. 06 20.01*** 38.29 1.09 7.91 • 65 Imagery 3. (HHH,HLH,HHL,HLL) > (LHH,LLH,LHL,LLL) 471. 51 122.35*** 652.26 5.63* 67.46 3. 48 4. (LHH,LLH,LHL) > LLL 47. 10 21.96*** 15.51 .14 164.51 7. 66** 5. LHH > (LLH,LHL) 35. 56 15.97*** 1761.13 28.92*** 729.11 58. 13*** 6. LLH > LHL 10. 64 38.49*** 119.10 9.24** 51.85 10. 16** 7. (HHH,HLH,HHL) > HLL 69. 32 21.41*** 816.66 7.93** 87.20 2. 74 8. HHH > (HLH,HHL) 336. 32 86.33*** 1732.91 34.15*** 87.20 5. 41* 9. HLH > HHL 30. 39 26.97*** 476.40 25.40*** 281.02 47. 69*** Note. HHL = h i g h imagery noun, h i g h imagery v e r b , low imagery noun ( e t c . ) Multivariate F(21,56) = 425.80, £ < .0001. M u l t i v a r i a t e F(9,68) = 17.43, £ < .0001. * £ < .05 * * £ < .01 * * * p < .001 ^ 68 t o t a l sample size was f a i r l y large, i t was judged that these minor depar-tures from Normality would not seriously bias the results df the F-tests. Accordingly, multivariate analyses of variance were conducted as usual. Because of computer program l i m i t a t i o n s two separate analyses of variance were used, one with 21 contrasts and one with nine contrasts. In both cases there was a s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l effect across grades, multi-variate F(21,56) = 425.80, _p_ < .0001, and multivariate F(9,68) = 17.43, £ < .0001. Contrary to expectations the number of case v i o l a t i o n s involved i n a figure had no s i g n i f i c a n t bearing upon i t s r e c a l l , but objective case vi o l a t i o n s were better recalled than dative case v i o l a t i o n s , a superiority judged s i g n i f i c a n t under the analysis of variance assumptions but non-si g n i f i c a n t under the more conservative x 2 analysis. Contrasts with respect to imagery were formulated s l i g h t l y d i f f e r -ently i n the parametric analysis than i n the non-parametric analysis to permit a closer examination of the roles of number, order and grammatical form class of high and low imagery constituents, although the study was not designed to i s o l a t e these as f u l l y crossed factors. As expected, a r e l a t i v e s u r f e i t of high imagery constituents i n a figure strongly improved i t s r e c a l l a b i l i t y . On the whole, the presence of a high imagery cue noun also aided r e c a l l , although there were excep-tions (e.g., Table XVI, contrasts 6 and 9). Consistently, high noun imagery f a c i l i t a t e d r e c a l l more than high verb imagery did. For l i k e a b i l i t y , two case v i o l a t i o n s were superior to one but there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between double v i o l a t i o n s involving the objective case and double v i o l a t i o n s involving the dative case. A greater number of high imagery constituents usually corresponded to higher 69 l i k e a b i l i t y scores, high imagery cues f a c i l i t a t e d l i k e a b i l i t y more than low imagery cues, and high imagery nouns were c o n s i s t e n t l y superior to high imagery verbs i n e f f e c t i n g l i k e a b i l i t y . D i s t r i b u t i o n of comprehension scale response types (Table XVIII) showed that abstract and integrated responses prevai l e d , but further anal-y s i s that took into account item imagery l e v e l s (Table XIX) revealed that low imagery items received fewer integrated and fewer abstract responses than did high imagery items. Correspondingly, high imagery items received more integrated and more abstract responses than did low imagery items. Derived scores'* representing t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n of item imagery l e v e l s with response i n t e g r a t i o n and abstractness proved to be s t a t i s t i c -a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( x 2 ( l ) = 15.22, £ < .01). The same i n t e r a c t i o n was also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amongst grades (for grade eight versus grades nine and ten, x 2(2) = 17.40, £ < .01; for grade nine versus grade ten, X 2(3) = 18.34, £ < .01). As f i g u r e 3 c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s , grade d i f f e r -ences can be a t t r i b u t e d mainly to the d i s t i n c t types of choices made by the grade ten students—more abstract integrated responses and correspond-i n g l y fewer concrete integrated responses. As was the case f or L i s t 1, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses v a l i d a t e d , to some extent, the proposed comprehension scale scoring system. Under t h i s scoring two case v i o l a t i o n s resulted i n better compre-hension than a s i n g l e case v i o l a t i o n , but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ference i n comprehension between objective and dative case v i o l a t i o n s . The number of high imagery elements i n a f i g u r e was not a consistent A^ product was formed by crossing the vector of c o e f f i c i e n t s for low-high imagery l e v e l s (-1, -1, -1, -1, 1, 1, 1, 1) with the vector of response option c o e f f i c i e n t s favoring abstract integrated choices (0, 1, -1, -1, 1). TABLE XVIII Percentages of L i s t 3 Comprehension Scale Response Options by Grade Response Options  No non-integrated integrated Grade response concrete abstract concrete abstract 8 2.1 8.0 14.6 18.9 56.4 9 .6 8.4 15.5 21.1 54.3 10 .2 6.1 14.8 10.9 67.9 Total 1.0 7.6 15.1 18.3 58.0 TABLE XIX Frequencies of L i s t 3 Comprehension Scale Response Options by Item Types Item Types Response Options concrete abstract Totals Low Imagery Items (LLL,LLH, LHL,HLL) non-integrated 66 162 228 integrated 192 520 712 Totals 258 682 940 No response - - 8 High Imagery Items (LHH,HLH, HHL,HHH) non-integrated 79 124 203 integrated 154 580 734 Totals 233 704 937 No response - - 11 1896 a a1896 = 24 items x 79 individuals 72 Figure 3. Percentage of cases s e l e c t i n g each type of response o p t i o n f o r L i s t 3 Comprehension Scores predictor of comprehension (e.g., Table XVII, contrasts 3 and 7) although high noun imagery was, consistently, a better predictor than high verb imagery. In addition to the differences between response variables, a lin e a r trend across grade appeared for the various measures used for L i s t 3 (multivariate F(21,56) = 1.98, £ < .05; and multivariate F(9.68) = 2.16, p_ < .05). The main sources of this age trend were ove r a l l l i k e a b i l i t y scores, F_(l,76) = 12.74, £ < .001, and three imagery contrasts, one on the l i k e a b i l i t y scale (Table XVII, contrast 6), F(l,76) = 4.61, £ < .05, and two on the comprehension scale (Table XVII, contrasts 4 rand 8), F_(l,76) = 4.83, £ < .05, and F(l,76) = 4.08, £ < .05, respectively. Because the l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension score d i s t r i b u t i o n s deviated s l i g h t l y from Normality, univariate F-ratios with p r o b a b i l i t i e s greater than .01 were considered as non-significant. Thus, only o v e r a l l l i k e a b i l i t y scores showed a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e trend across grades. For o v e r a l l r e c a l l and comprehension scores, grade trends, though not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f -icant, were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n . Hoyt estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y for the L i s t 3 scales were .65 for r e c a l l , .86 for l i k e a b i l i t y , and .73 for comprehension. The r e l a t i v e l y low in t e r n a l consistency for r e c a l l suggests that several factors may underlie r e c a l l of these more complex figures. When considered as the f i r s t three contrasts i n a step-down anal-y s i s , mean l i k e a b i l i t y , r e c a l l and comprehension scores for L i s t 3 were seen to be r e l a t i v e l y independent, with F_(l,76) = 2098.43, £ < .0001, F(l,75) = 4.47, £ < .05, and F(l,74) = 220.17, £ < .0001. Comparing students' t o t a l scores on the various scales, as well as error scores after grade effects were removed (Table XX), i t was found TABLE XX Correlations Amongst Response Variables Variables L i s t 1 (N =98) L i s t 3 (N =79) Total Scores Error Scores 3 Total Scores Error Scores 3 Recall & L i k e a b i l i t y .302** Recall & Comprehension .135 Comprehension & L i k e a b i l i t y -.012 .275** .114 -.027 ,183 292** .140 .114 ,267* .060 a E f f e c t of grade levels removed *2 < .05 •£ < .01 that f o r L i s t 1 there was a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between r e c a l l and l i k e a b i l i t y s c o r e s , and f o r L i s t 3 between r e c a l l and compre-hension s c o r e s . No other p a i r s of scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d . Thus, f o r both l i s t s , comprehension and l i k e a b i l i t y appeared as independ-ent response f a c t o r s . CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The preceding results have important bearings upon the three theories of fi g u r a t i v e language elaborated i n e a r l i e r chapters. These theories w i l l be discussed sequentially i n l i g h t of the findings. A. The Structural Hypothesis The psychological relevance of the str u c t u r a l hypothesis was p a r t i c u l a r l y well substantiated by the findings i n the present study. For comprehension especially, students discriminated amongst metonyms, synecdoches and metaphors. They did so i n such a way as to show that the structural relations of contiguity, hierarchy, and s i m i l a r i t y , which these types of figures respectively represent, are, i n fa c t , f a m i l i a r and functional aspects of thought that are operative during the interpretation of f i g u r a t i v e language. Furthermore, the d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding the types of figures increases as thei r complexity increases. Those figures i n which only one r e l a t i o n occurred (namely, s i m i l a r i t y ) were easier to comprehend than those i n which two relations were suggested—contiguity or hierarchy by the semantic features of the pa r t i c u l a r concepts, and s i m i l a r i t y or equivalence by the copular verb uniting the concepts. For r e c a l l , too, the response to metonyms, synecdoches, and metaphors followed the expected order. Those figures comprised of elements co-occurring with high frequency i n natural language ( i . e . , associatively 76 77 related concepts) were easiest to r e c a l l ; those composed of elements only infrequently juxtaposed i n natural usage were the most d i f f i c u l t to r e c a l l . The hypothesis that moderately similar concepts would combine to make the best l i k e d figures was borne out for the high imagery metaphors used i n L i s t 2. In L i s t 1 this e f f e c t , while nominally present, did not reach s t a t i s t i c a l significance, possibly because of the interference from the variety of st r u c t u r a l relations involved i n the figures. I t would be of interest to determine whether moderate s i m i l a r i t y amongst concepts i n abstract metaphors would be equally efficacious i n producing likeable figures. Unexpectedly, both highly similar and frequently conjoined concepts produced the most li k e a b l e figures of speech. Apparently the unusualness of the juxtapositions i n these types was s u f f i c i e n t to arouse interest, while further semantic deviance only made them less memorable, likeable and comprehensible. Structural principles were operative i n the comprehension of the more complex L i s t 3 figures as w e l l . Students not only chose those i n t e r -pretations offering conceptual integration, but chose i n a way that revealed the operation of a further cognitive p r i n c i p l e based upon complementarity, a p r i n c i p l e which might be labelled "imagery balance". Thus, abstract interpretations were more favored for concrete figures than for abstract figures, and concrete interpretations were more favored for abstract figures than for concrete figures (Table XIX). The success of the str u c t u r a l hypothesis i n predicting responses to figures of speech augurs well for generalization of the theory to non-verbal modalities. Since the constituents of the structural theory are concepts, rather than l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s , i t seems reasonable to expect the 78 p a t t e r n s of response observed i n t h i s i n q u i r y to reappear i n e x t r a -l i n g u i s t i c symbolic f i g u r a t i o n such as that which might e x i s t i n v i s u a l a r t s and communications media. The evidence here i m p l i e s that the u t i l i z a t i o n of f i g u r e s i s a conceptual phenomenon and not merely a l i n g u i s t i c one. For the more complex f i g u r e s the markedly greater preference by grade ten students f o r the a b s t r a c t i n t e g r a t e d response options suggests a q u a l i t a t i v e s h i f t i n c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n at t h i s grade l e v e l . T h i s s h i f t i s towards both i n t e g r a t e d responses (78.8% f o r grade ten compared to 75.4% and 75.3% for grades nine and e i g h t , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) and a b s t r a c t responses (82.7% f o r grade ten compared to 71.0% and 69.8% f o r grades n i n e and e i g h t , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) and s u b s t a n t i a t e s the P i a g e t i a n view that a b s t r a c t or formal o p e r a t i o n a l thought emerges around t h i s age (Inhelder & P i a g e t , 1958; Rohwer, 1972; Rohwer & Bean, 1973). No s i g n i f i c a n t grade d i f f e r e n c e s appeared i n responses to the s t r u c -t u r a l dimensions i n L i s t 1 although trends suggested that students i n lower grades processed a l l types of f i g u r e s l e s s w e l l than those i n h i g h e r grades, and that i n c r e a s i n g l y greater grade d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c a l l e x i s t e d f o r metonyms, synecdoches and metaphors. T h i s p a t t e r n i s i n g e n e r a l agreement with s e v e r a l recent developmental s t u d i e s of f i g u r a t i v e language p r o d u c t i o n and comprehension i n younger c h i l d r e n , as i s the f i n d -i n g that preference for complex f i g u r e s i n c r e a s e s w i t h grade. These developmental s t u d i e s , which were r e p o r t e d a f t e r the data f o r t h i s study were gathered, are worth d i s c u s s i n g i n some d e t a i l . B i l l o w (1975) proposed a d i s t i n c t i o n between s i m i l a r i t y metaphor and p r o p o r t i o n a l metaphor, the d i f f e r e n c e l y i n g e s s e n t i a l l y i n the number of elements i n v o l v e d i n the f i g u r e , three i n the former (two terms and a 79 shared a t t r i b u t e ) and four or more i n proportional r e l a t i o n i n the l a t t e r . For example, (50) A b u t t e r f l y i s a f l y i n g rainbow and (51) Hours are leaves of l i f e represent s i m i l a r i t y and proportional metaphor, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t appears that proportional metaphor i s what others have c a l l e d analogy (Kirk, McCarthy & Kirk, 1968; Kongas Maranda, 1971). Studying c h i l d r e n between f i v e and t h i r t e e n years of age Billow observed that the presence of concrete operations was not necessary for the understanding of metaphor, but that increased use of concrete operations did coincide with increased metaphoric responding. In addition, a high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n existed between comprehension of proportional meta-phors and f a c i l i t y with formal operations. Thus, the e a r l i e s t comprehen-sion of f i g u r e s , Billow suggests, occurs i n an i n t u i t i v e way and i s l a t e r r a t i o n a l i z e d ; t h i s a b i l i t y increases with age and permits the reasoned comprehension of in c r e a s i n g l y complex f i g u r e s . B i l l o w also observed what he c a l l e d "synecdochic processes" i n the in c o r r e c t responding of younger c h i l d r e n . These were responses focussing upon i n s u f f i c i e n t elements of the t o t a l f i g u r e (hence a part of the whole f i g u r e , or a synecdochic process). The responses were frequently common contiguous associations. This metonymic responding was more frequent amongst younger and le s s developed i n d i v i d u a l s than amongst older and wiser ones, a trend which i s i n accord with the trends observed i n t h i s study. Gardner, Kircher, Winner, & Perkins (1975) found that over the period from four to nineteen years, people in c r e a s i n g l y preferred approp-r i a t e metaphorical endings over l i t e r a l , conventional and inappropriate 80 m e t a p h o r i c a l endings f o r s u i t a b l e passages. Conventional metaphors predominated i n p r o d u c t i o n at every age l e v e l but the youngest i n d i v i d u a l s produced the l a r g e s t number of both a p p r o p r i a t e and i n a p p r o p r i a t e f i g u r e s . The authors suggest that the h i g h p r o d u c t i o n by p r e - s c h o o l e r s r e f l e c t s a w i l l i n g n e s s '!to f o l l o w t h e i r sensory i m a g i n a t i o n " (p. 11) u n f e t t e r e d by c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s . As a n a l y t i c c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s e s , i n d i v i d u a l s p l a c e f i r s t l i t e r a l , then c o n v e n t i o n a l , and f i n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e i r m e t a p h o r i c a l p r o d u c t i o n s . The study considered b r i e f contexts ending with a comparative s t r u c -ture u s i n g one of eighteen common or l e s s common a d j e c t i v e s ; f o r example: (52) He looks as g i g a n t i c as . . . (53) weather as b o i l i n g as . . . (54) c o l o u r s as b r i g h t as . . . A response was judged m e t a p h o r i c a l l y " a p p r o p r i a t e " i f the a d j e c t i v e was p r o j e c t e d onto a sensory domain where i t was not l i t e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e , onto a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e , or given a r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e i n the u s u a l domain. Although the study was thereby l i m i t e d to a r a t h e r narrow range of f i g u r a t i v e form and content, the developmental observations were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the preferences observed i n t h i s study f o r a broader s e l e c t i o n of f i g u r e s . Winner, R o s e n t i e l , & Gardner (Note 8) r e p o r t e d on the performance of s i x - to f o u r t e e n - y e a r - o l d s i n p r o v i d i n g or s e l e c t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r s e v e r a l types of m e t a p h o r i c a l sentences such as (55) A f t e r many years of working at the j a i l , the p r i s o n guard had become a hard rock that could not be moved. and (56) Her f i n g e r n a i l p o l i s h was a loud s p l a s h of c o l o r . For m u l t i p l e choice questions four paraphrases based on d i f f e r e n t 81 p r i n c i p l e s were p r o f f e r e d as o p t i o n s , a technique s i m i l a r to that employed i n t h i s study. The most p r i m i t i v e s o l u t i o n e n t a i l e d the l i t e r a l equation o f the two elements being compared. C h i l d r e n choosing t h i s o p t i o n would presumably i n t e r p r e t example (55) l i t e r a l l y as a magical t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n of the person i n t o a rock and (56) as meaning "her f i n g e r n a i l p o l i s h made a loud n o i s e " . A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d response would r e s u l t from r e l a t i n g the two elements of the metaphor i n a n a r r a t i v e sequence or by some other a s s o c i a t i v e l i n k , so that example (55) might mean that the guard worked i n a rocky p r i s o n . T h i s response, which the authors terms " t h e m a t i c " , i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same as the "metonymic" r e l a t i o n d i s c u s s e d i n the present study, or the "synecdochic p r o c e s s " proposed by B i l l o w . A t h i r d and s t i l l more s o p h i s t i c a t e d choice e n t a i l e d "the engulf ing of one domain of the metaphor by the other" (p. 5 ) , a response that Winner, et a l . l a b e l e d " c o n c r e t e " . Example (55) might thereby be i n t e r p r e t e d as meaning "that the guard, l i k e the r o c k , i s p h y s i c a l l y hard and muscular". The authors do not c o n s i d e r t h i s response metaphoric, and although i t i s not a f u l l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (since i t overlooks fundamental s i m i l a r i t i e s between guard and rock at the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l e v e l ) i t i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , grounded on a r e l a t i o n s h i p of s i m i l a r i t y and should be considered both as an acceptable meaning of the f i g u r e and as a m e t a p h o r i c a l l y based meaning. What Winner, et a l . c o n s i d e r to be the "mature" meaning of example (55) i s the p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaning. They thus see a b s t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as the highest form of metaphoric understanding. Although i t i s reasonable to expect i n d i v i d u a l s capable of formal o p e r a t i o n s to p e r c e i v e and p r e f e r a b s t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , not a l l f i g u r e s have such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , nor do such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s always c o n s t i t u t e the s u p e r i o r meaning. As the present study r e v e a l e d , a p r i n c i p l e of imagery balance i s a l s o o p e r a t i v e 82 i n determinining s u i t a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , with the consequence that concrete i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are commonly acceptable for abstract metaphors. The i n s i s t e n c e upon the abstract i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as the most advanced introduces an unnecessary narrowness i n defining good metaphor. The sequence of options used by Winner and her associates bears a s t r i k i n g resemblance to that developed from the p r i n c i p l e s put forward i n Chapter II for providing alternate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of nominal-copula-nominal f i g u r e s . Thus, t h e i r "thematic" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n corresponds to my "metonymic", and t h e i r "concrete" and "mature" correspond approximately to my options based r e s p e c t i v e l y on minor and major s i m i l a r i t i e s . The "concrete" and "mature" categories also correspond more or le s s to the concrete and abstract integrations proposed i n t h i s study for i n t e r p r e t i n g more complex f i g u r e s . Winner, et a l . documented a steady increase over age i n use of the metaphoric i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s replaced the thematic and concrete i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s more commonly used by younger subjects. In addition, cross-sensory items were more r e a d i l y interpreted metaphorically than psychological-physical items, e s p e c i a l l y for the youngest c h i l d r e n . This suggests that the increased abstractness of the l a t t e r type made them p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t . Examining the comprehension of a d i f f e r e n t group of pre-adolescents, Winner (Note 9) found that a half-hour of t r a i n i n g for eight weeks could s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve production and s e l e c t i o n of appropriate metaphorical endings to short vignettes. Moreover, i n d i v i d u a l s appeared to pass through the same stages before reaching a f u l l y productive stage. Winner characterized these stages as (a) conventional, (b) embellishment of the conventional, (c) appeal of the inappropriate, (d) f a i l u r e to cross 83 categories, (e) incomplete metaphor, and f i n a l l y (f) clear comparisons across disparate domains. The c r e d i b i l i t y of these stages and the t r a i n -ing process becomes suspect when the example Winner c i t e s as representing an appropriate metaphorical ending i s examined: (57) Her voice was as thundering as the smell of gasoline. Disparate domains are surely crossed here but the r e s u l t i s l e s s an appropriate metaphor than a badly mixed one. While valuable from a developmental view, the studies j u s t consid-ered were hampered by i n s u f f i c i e n t analysis of the materials i n use. They provided mainly normative data on persons when both that and s t r u c t u r a l analysis of materials were necessary. The present study complemented these studies by providing a more thorough task a n a l y s i s . These four developmental studies were biased i n another way. They examined comprehension of f i g u r a t i v e language on the basis of multiple-choice s e l e c t i o n tasks, explanations, and productions; the s e l e c t i o n tasks were, i n most cases, d i s t o r t e d by "demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " , that i s , the abstract metaphorical choice represented the preferred response. Kogan (Note 10) avoided t h i s demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and concurrently widened the study from f i g u r a t i v e language to f i g u r a t i v e thought by examining preferred pairings made from amongst p i c t u r e t r i a d s . Of the three pairings possible for each t r i a d , one, according to the author, offered a metaphorical s i m i l a r -i t y , but respondents were asked i f they could make other pairings and i n each case were asked for the basis of t h e i r p a i r i n g . The method permitted c r e d i t i n g f or metaphorical p a i r i n g on the basis of unanticipated or non-c e n t r a l a t t r i b u t e s . Thus the meaning of metaphor was more l i b e r a l l y (and more c o r r e c t l y ) understood than i n the other studies. F u l l c r e d i t was given f o r recognition and s a t i s f a c t o r y explanation of the metaphorical 84 linkage; p a r t i a l c r e d i t f o r recognition accompanied by a l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y explanation. Inter-judge r e l i a b i l i t y was high, and Kogan reports that the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of the t r i a d t e s t was i n the order of .77, implying that metaphorical preference was being r e l i a b l y assessed. Working with students i n the seven- to thirteen-year age range and graduate students, Kogan observed a c l e a r age trend i n metaphorical sens-i t i v i t y . E a rly data also suggested a possible female s u p e r i o r i t y . As i n the present study, item d i f f i c u l t i e s varied widely but showed only s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n with age. Whereas the present study re l a t e d t h i s d i f -f e r e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y to aspects of item conceptual structure, imagery and s p e c i f i c semantic v a r i a t i o n s , Kogan's report offered no r a t i o n a l e f or the observed d i f f e r e n c e s . C o r r e l a t i o n of t r i a d task scores with other cognitive and creative measures revealed few consistent r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Only a s p e c i a l l y devel-oped q u a l i t y scoring for the Divergent-thinking tasks (Wallaeh & Kogan, 1965) and teachers' ratings of students' "aesthetic s e n s i t i v i t y " r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y to the t o t a l metaphor score. Kogan reports ongoing work examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between metaphorical s e n s i t i v i t y and a v a r i e t y of other measures—daydreaming, resourcefulness, o r i g i n a l i t y , sense of humour, emotional expressiveness, empathy and preference for working alone. Using the t r i a d t e s t , Kogan also found that t r a i n i n g could s i g n i f -i c a n t l y increase metaphorical responding. In f a c t , a simple request for exhaustive p a i r i n g within the t r i a d s "was s u f f i c i e n t to e l i c i t a l a t e n t metaphoric capacity" (Kogan, Note 10, p. 15). This ease of t r a i n i n g strengthens Winner's (Note 9) claim'about t r a i n i n g e f f e c t s on metaphorical thinking. Kogan concludes that for the age l e v e l s examined (seven- and 85 n i n e - y e a r - o l d s ) performance d i d not adequately r e f l e c t competence i n the metaphoric domain. Although he does not l i n k i t to h i s observations of item d i f f i c u l t y , Kogan ( a f t e r Kagan, Moss, & S i g e l , 1963) does suggest two c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g s t y l e s , one based on s i m i l a r i t y and one on complementarity. Complementarity i m p l i e s a r e j e c t i o n of s i m i l a r i t y as a b a s i s f o r g r o u p i n g , and u t i l i z a t i o n i n s t e a d of f u n c t i o n a l or thematic r e l a t i o n s . T h i s p r i n c i p l e f o r i n t e r - c o n c e p t r e l a t i o n i s very c l o s e to the p r i n c i p l e of c o n t i g u i t y as used i n t h i s study, a r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h h a s been taken to i n c l u d e c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s and to form the b a s i s f o r l i t e r a r y meto-nyms. Thus, complementarity, metonymy and c o n t i g u i t y form a.semantic c l u s t e r . Kogan d i s t i n g u i s h e s two types of s i m i l a r i t y , a n a l y t i c and c a t e g o r -i c a l , a n a l y t i c s i m i l a r i t y being present when two concepts have common a t t r i b u t e s , and c a t e g o r i c a l s i m i l a r i t y being present when two concepts represent the same c l a s s . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n may not be tenable s i n c e c l a s s membership i s u l t i m a t e l y determined on the b a s i s of one or more a t t r i b u t e s , but the d i s t i n c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to that made i n t h i s study between those f i g u r e s based on the p r i n c i p l e of h i e r a r c h y between compon-ents and those based on the p r i n c i p l e of s i m i l a r i t y . Kogan's a n a l y s i s seems to confound the h i e r a r c h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h that between c e n t r a l and n o n - c e n t r a l a t t r i b u t e s . In c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , Kogan's work comes c l o s e s t to the s t r u c t u r a l model employed i n t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n , he suggests that i n t e r n a l analyses of h i s t r i a d items are r e q u i r e d and that a c o n c e p t u a l - v i s u a l d i s t i n c t i o n amongst metaphors might be f r u i t f u l to e x p l o r e . T h i s d i s -t i n c t i o n i s comparable to that made i n t h i s study between a b s t r a c t and 86 concrete items, a topic which i s discussed below. B. The Imagery Hypothesis As has been the case for many other verbal materials, word imagery rating was a potent factor i n determining the r e c a l l a b i l i t y of fig u r a t i v e expressions. Paivio's (1971) "conceptual peg" hypothesis, that i s , that a high imagery cue word w i l l f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l better than a low imagery cue word by serving as a convenient mneumonic device to which to relate an associated word, gained clear support i n these studies. Even when verbal materials became more complex, as they did i n Study I I , the superior-i t y of the high imagery cue noun prevailed. Sheer number of high imagery components i n a figure also improved i t s r e c a l l a b i l i t y , and high imagery nouns aided more than did high imagery verbs. In terms of l i k e a b i l i t y , too, high imagery was important, as was grammatical form class of the high imagery constituents, but order of occurrence of those constituents was less important. Thus, no advantage was gained by e x p l i c i t movement within a figure from the abstract to the concrete, and consequently, the predictions of Davidson (Note 3) and Thomas (1969) about the importance of hypostatization or concretization could not be supported. Since figures expressed i n concrete terms were generally preferred i n t h i s study, i t can be speculated that words which readily induce images are effective at producing optimal levels of cognitive arousal. Nouns are apparently more effective at th i s than are verbs. Of considerable theoretical interest was the r e l a t i v e lack of effect of component imagery levels on comprehension scores. This c l e a r l y implied that concrete figures, while more memorable and l i k e a b l e , were not 87 necessarily easier to understand. If this i s true for non-figurative l i n g u i s t i c materials as w e l l , i t has important implications for the development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials. In Study I I imagery did have some effect upon comprehension but the pattern of results seemed to sug-gest that something other than the mere magnitude of mean imagery l e v e l was operating. High noun imagery appeared to f a c i l i t a t e comprehension more than high verb imagery, but order of the high imagery elements had no consistent effects. Results of the p i l o t study (Wilkinson, Note 2) suggested that rated imagery of a whole sentence was an even better predictor of r e c a l l than the summed imagery ratings of the component words. In general, the processing of more complex l i n g u i s t i c structures may be a combined function of imagery and integration of the conceptual components. C. L i n g u i s t i c Hypotheses Figures involving human semantic aspects, whether encoded as features or as case requirements, proved to be harder to r e c a l l than figures with no human reference, but v i o l a t i o n of [-human] selectional r e s t r i c t i o n s or dative case r e s t r i c t i o n s had no other behavioral effects. The d i r e c t i o n of t h i s single observed difference i s the same as that observed i n the data of Howe and Hillman (1973), that i s , dative case v i o l a t i o n s are more d i f f i c u l t to process cognitively than objective case v i o l a t i o n s . Furthermore, Howe and Hillman observed young children's a b i l i t y to recognize v i o l a t i o n s whereas this study observed adolescents' a b i l i t y to r e c o l l e c t figures embodying those v i o l a t i o n s . Thus, for at least two measures and two age l e v e l s , dative case v i o l a t i o n s appear to be more d i f f i c u l t than objective case v i o l a t i o n s . There i s no ready explanation for this phenomenon unless, perhaps, cognitive dissonance 88 r e s u l t s from semantically v i o l a t i n g the s a n c t i t y of that which i s human or animate. In any case, the phenomenon i s of somewhat dubious s t a b i l i t y , since no comprehension or l i k e a b i l i t y differences appeared between these two types of case v i o l a t i o n s i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . O v e r a l l , and within the moderately s i m i l a r figures of L i s t 2 ( i . e . , the preferred f i g u r e s ) , p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s were no more nor l e s s preferred than other types of f i g u r e s . I t therefore appears that neither person-i f i c a t i o n nor animation produce figures of speech which are inherently preferable to other types. Good figures of speech are apparently not r e s t r i c t e d to any p a r t i c u l a r set of semantic domains. Given that students preferred the metonyms and synecdoches of L i s t 1 over the metaphors, i t was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g to see that they preferred and best comprehended those L i s t 3 figures having the greater number of case v i o l a t i o n s . Presumably, i n s u f f i c i e n t cognitive arousal was provided by a s i n g l e v i o l a t i o n to produce l i k e a b i l i t y . Also, i t i s possible that a minimum l e v e l of arousal must be reached to induce conceptual explora-t i o n and subsequent comprehension. This l e v e l was apparently not reached for f igures with si n g l e case v i o l a t i o n s . D. General Conclusions 1. The s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s of c o n t i g u i t y , hierarchy, s i m i l a r i t y and i n t e g r a t i o n are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y meaningful (both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and e m p i r i c a l l y ) , having demonstrable e f f e c t s upon r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension of verbal f i g u r a t i v e expressions. 2. Whereas high imagery of f i g u r e constituents i s strongly r e l a t e d to high r e c a l l and moderately re l a t e d to l i k e a b i l i t y , i t appears that there i s only a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p between high imagery and comprehension. 89 Expressions comprised predominantly of words that readily induce mental imagery are easier to r e c a l l and are better l i k e d than expres-sions comprised predominantly of words which do not readily evoke images. By i t s e l f , abundance of high imagery words i n a f i g u r a t i v e expression has l i t t l e effect upon the comprehension of that expres-sion. Order of high imagery components i s also d i f f e r e n t i a l l y important. Expressions i n which high imagery constituents occupy i n i t i a l positions are easier to r e c a l l than expressions i n which low imagery constituents occupy those positions, but the order of high and low imagery constituents i n a figure has l i t t l e effect upon the l i k e a b i l i t y or comprehension of that figure. Interaction of imagery l e v e l and grammatical form class i s consistent: high noun imagery i s superior to high verb imagery i n predicting r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension of fig u r a t i v e expressions. Imagery levels of component words affects interpretations given to figures i n such a way that adolescents show a s l i g h t tendency to choose concrete interpretations for abstract figures of speech and abstract interpretations for concrete figures of speech. This phenomenon can be viewed as an instance of a st r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e of balance or complementarity, and provides a point of convergence between the structural and imagery hypotheses. 3. Figures of speech employing human characteristics are more d i f f i c u l t to r e c a l l than those involving other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but they are no diff e r e n t on measures of l i k e a b i l i t y or comprehension. For the more complex figures of speech an optimal l e v e l of semantic v i o l a t i o n apparently must be attained to maximize l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension. L i n g u i s t i c theories provide no ready explanation for these phenomena. 90 Thus, the hypotheses based upon semantic feature v i o l a t i o n s and case category v i o l a t i o n s are les s u s e f u l as predictors of psychological responses to f i g u r a t i v e language than are conceptual structure and imagery hypotheses. Moderate s i m i l a r i t y between elements of high imagery metaphors maxi-mizes t h e i r l i k e a b i l i t y , while extreme s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y produces unacceptable f i g u r e s . For figures i n v o l v i n g a v a r i e t y of conceptual r e l a t i o n s r e c a l l , l i k e a b i l i t y and comprehension are a l l enhanced by high inter-concept s i m i l a r i t y . Within the l e v e l s studied, grade trends i n the processing of f i g u r -a t i v e expressions are s l i g h t , although students i n higher grades show ind i c a t i o n s of understanding, l i k i n g and remembering f i g u r a t i v e language better than those i n lower grades. Within grades eight, nine and ten responses are not affected by v a r i a t i o n s i n the concep-t u a l structures of the expressions. Metaphor and i t s congeners should be considered as conceptual rather than purely l i n g u i s t i c phenomena. Results of t h i s research ind i c a t e that "metaphorical thinking" i s a process that follows the same sorts of l o g i c a l and pyschological laws that other forms of thinking do. The study provided evidence of a strong f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n between conceptual structure and comprehension but only a weak r e l a t i o n between comprehension and imagery. Observation of these l i m i t s to imagery gives credence to the view that imagery i s an operational modality j u s t as language i s , but that another modality, a quasi-l o g i c a l , or s t r u c t u r a l one permeates both imagery and verbal processes. 91 E. Implications for Further Research I t i s conceivable that the semantic complexities represented by the various categories within case grammar could be systematically anal-yzed i n terms of the structural relations that they e n t a i l . This would require s p e c i f i c a t i o n of more structural relations than were u t i l i z e d i n these studies. Simmons (1972) and Suppes (1974) both provide approaches to t h i s task, but i t i s c l e a r l y a monumental one. Once such a l o g i c a l analysis i s available, systematic empirical v a l i d a t i o n can follow. Of more immediate potential for investigation i s the role of con-ceptual structure within abstract expressions, and the role of structural relations amongst components i n non-verbal modalities, for example, an investigation of p i c t o r i a l , sculptural or behavioral metaphor. Further investigation could also be undertaken to assess the effects of conceptual structures i n the processing of f i g u r a t i v e language by younger children. So as to strengthn the conclusions drawn here from a r t i f i c a l l y created f i g u r a t i v e language i t would also be useful to s t r u c t u r a l l y assess figures of speech occurring i n natural language and use that anal-y s i s to predict behavioral responses to those figures. F. Implications for P r a c t i c a l Applications The ubiquity of f i g u r a t i v e expression i n everyday language, adult's and children's l i t e r a t u r e , persuasive discourse, advertising and propaganda i s unquestionable, and those who would use i t e f f e c t i v e l y to influence or instruct can be guided by the principles put forward and substantiated here. For memorability, high imagery figures should be chosen; for appeal and comprehension, the semantic relations amongst the 92 concepts used i n the f i g u r e must be c o n s i d e r e d ; f o r simple metaphors the conceptual s i m i l a r i t y i n v o l v e d must be moderate i f the f i g u r e i s to be a p p e a l i n g ; f o r more complex f i g u r e s conceptual i n t e g r a t i o n must be achieved f o r comprehension. For i n s t r u c t i o n about f i g u r a t i v e language t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o v i d e s , i n the s t r u c t u r a l theory, a coherent and e m p i r i c a l l y grounded account of the m a j o r i t y of f i g u r a t i v e forms. T h i s i t s e l f i s a major improvement on the incomplete and i n c o n s i s t e n t explanations that were i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s . For layman and f o r poet the study merely provides an e x p l a n -a t i o n of a s u b t l e and complex thought process normally taken for granted. What no study can do i s to a n t i c i p a t e the immensely r i c h and v a r i e d contents that can be r e a l i z e d w i t h i n the b a s i c f i g u r a t i v e forms. 93 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Paivio, A. Images, propositions and knowledge. Paper presented at the I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Workshop on Images, Perception and Knowledge, London, Ontario, University of Western Ontario, May 9-12, 1974. 2. Wilkinson, W. K. Psychosemahtic predictors of effective figures of speech. Unpublished manuscript, 1975. 3. Berlyne, D. E. Affective aspects of aesthetic communication. Paper presented at the Symposium oh Affect and Communication, Erindale College, University of Toronto, 1971. 4. Davidson, R. E. Educational implications of research on elaboration, imagery and memory: Discussion. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meetings, Minneapolis, 1970. 5. Maranda, P., & Kongas Maranda, E. Myth as a cognitive map: A sketch of the Okanagan Myth Automaton. Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. 6. Maranda, P., Taylor, B., & Flynn, F. From words to plots: Computer-ized analysis of myths. Paper delivered i n the Canada-France Work-shop on the Analysis of Representation Systems, No. 1, Vancouver, mimeo, 1972. 7. Paivio, A. Personal communication, November 30, 1972. 8. Winner, E., Rosentiel, A. K., & Gardner, H. The development of metaphoric understanding. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research i n Child Development, Denver, Colorado, A p r i l , 1975. 9. Winner, E. Can pre-adolescents produce metaphoric figures? In H. Gardner (Chair), "And Pharaoh's Heart Hardened ... ": Children's s e n s i t i v i t y to fi g u r a t i v e language. Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for Research i n Child Development, Denver, Colorado, A p r i l , 1975. 10. Kogan, N. Metaphoric thinking i n children: Developmental and in d i v i d u a l difference aspects. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research i n Child Development, Denver, Colorado, A p r i l , 1975. 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alleman, B. Metaphor and antimetaphor. In S. R. Hopper, & D. L. M i l l e r (Eds.), Interpretation: The poetry of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967. American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Rev. ed.). Washington, D.C: Author, 1967. American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American  Psychological Association (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C: Author, 1974. Anderson, C. C. The psychology of the metaphor. The Journal of Genetic  Psychology, 1964, 105, 53-73. Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. Human associative memory. New York: Wiley, 1973. Angel, L. J. A transformational analysis of metaphor. M.A. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967. Anglin, J. M. The growth of word meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1970. Asch, S. E. The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In R. Tagiuri, & L. P e t r u l l o (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. Asch, S. E., & Nerlove, H. The development of double function terms i n children. In B. Kaplan, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Perspectives i n  psychological theory. New York: International University Press, 1960. Barthes, R. Writing degree zero and Elements of semiology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. (Originally published, 1953). Barthes, R. Mythologies. Frogmore, St. Albans, U.K.: Paladin, 1973. (Originally published, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , 1957). Bartram, D. J. The r o l e of v i s u a l and semantic codes i n object naming. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, j>, 325-356. Berlyne, D. E. Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and  Psychophysics, 1970, 13, 279-286. Berlyne, D. E. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. 95 Berlyne, D. E., Craw, M. A., Salapatek, P. H., & Lewis, J. L. Novelty, complexity, incongruity, e x t r i n s i c motivation and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, j>6_, 560-567. Berlyne, D. E., & Boudewijns, W. J. A. Hedonic effects of uniformity i n variety. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1971, 2_5, 195-206. Billow, R. M. A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 1975, JJL, 415-423. Black, M. Models and metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962. Bock, R. D. Multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l methods i n behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Bock, R. D., & Yates, G. Multiqual: Log-linear analysis of nominal or  ordinal q u a l i t a t i v e data by the method of maximum l i k e l i h o o d . Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc., 1973. Bower, G. H. Mental imagery and associative learning. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition i n learning and memory. New York: Wiley, 1972. Box, G. E. P. Some theories on quadratic forms applied i n the study of analysis of variance problems: I. Effect of inequality of v a r i -ance i n the one-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Annals of Mathematical  S t a t i s t i c s , 1954, 25, 290-302. Brown, R. A f i r s t language: The early stages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973. Brooke-Rose, C. A grammar of metaphor. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1958. C a r r o l l , J . B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. Word frequency book. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1971. Caruth, E., & Ekstein, R. Interpretation within the metaphor: Further considerations. American Academy of Child Psychiatry Journal, 1966, 5 (1), 35-45. Cassirer, E. The power of metaphor. In P. Maranda (Ed.), Mythology. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1972. (Originally published i n German, 1923). Chase, W. G., & Clark, H. H. Mental operations i n the comparison of sentences and pictures. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition i n learning  and memory. New York: Wiley, 1972. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1965. 96 Chun, Ki-Taek. A psychological study of myth-making: A three factor theory of metaphor-to-myth transformation. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of C a l i f o r n i a (Berkeley), 1971. Clark, H. H., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. On the meeting of semantics and perception. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information proces- sing. New York: Academic Press, 1973. C o l l i n s , A. M., & Q u i l l i a n , M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, jJ, 240-247. C o l l i n s , A. M., & Q u i l l i a n , M. R. Experiments on semantic memory and language comprehension. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition i n learning and memory. New York: Wiley, 1972. Creelman, M. M. The experimental investigation of meaning. New York: Springer, 1966. Crovitz, H. F. Galton's Walk. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. cummings, e. e. selected poems 1923-1958. London: Faber & Faber, 1960. E l i o t , T. S. Selected poems. London: Faber & Faber, 1961. Fernandez, J. The mission of metaphor i n expressive culture. Current  Anthropology, 1974, 15, 119-145. Fillmore, C. J . The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals i n l i n g u i s t i c theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Fillenbaum, S., & Rapoport, A. Structures i n the subjective lexicon. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Finn, J . D. Multivariance: Univariate and multivariate analysis of  variance, covariance and regression (User's Guide, Version V). Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Educational Resources, Inc., 1972. Finn, J. D. A general model for multivariate analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974. Furbank, P. N. Reflections on the word "Image". London: Seeker & Warburg, 1970. Gardner, H. Metaphors and modalities: How children project polar adjectives onto diverse domains. Child Development, 1974, 4o, 84-91. Gardner, H., Kircher, M., Winner, E., & Perkins, D. Children's metaphoric productions and preferences. Journal of Child Language, 1975, 2_, 1-17. 97 Gordon, W. J. J. Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Gordon, W. J. J. The metaphorical way of learning and knowing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Porpoise Books, 1966. Groesbeck, H. G. The comprehension of fi g u r a t i v e language by elementary children: A study of transfer. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Oklahoma, 1961. Henley, N. A psychological study of the semantics of animal terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8_, 176-184. Hester, M. B. The meaning of poetic metaphor. The Hague: Mouton, 1967. Howe, H. E. J r . , & Hillman, D. The acqui s i t i o n of semantic r e s t r i c t i o n s i n children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 132-139. Hume, D. Sceptical doubts about inductive inference. In W. P. Alston, & R. B. Brandt (Eds.), The problems of philosophy. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1967. (orig. 1748). Hummel, T. J . , & Sligo, J . R. Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate analysis of variate procedures. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1971, 76(1), 49-57. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J . The growth of l o g i c a l thinking from childhood  to adolescence. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Jacobs, R. A., & Rosenbaum, P. S. English transformational grammar. Waltham, Massachusetts: Xerox College Publishing, 1968. Kagan, J . , Moss, H. A., & Si g e l , I. E. Psychological significance of styles of conceptualization. In J. C. Wright, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitive processes i n children. Monographs of the Society  for Research i n Child Development, 1963, 28(2). Kamman, R., & Streeter, L. Two meanings of word abstractness. Journal  of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971, 10, 303-306. Kaplan, A. The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964. Katz, J . J . , & Fodor, J. A. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 1963, 39, 170-210. Kintsch, W. Abstract nouns: imagery versus l e x i c a l complexity. Journal  of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 59-65. Kintsch, W. Notes on the structure of semantic memory. In E. Tulving, & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. 98 Ki r k , S. A.,. McCarthy, J . , & Kirk, W. D. Examiner's manual: I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s (Rev. ed.). Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1968. Koen, F. An intra-verbal explication of the nature of metaphor. Journal  of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 129-133. Kongas Maranda, E. K. A tree grows: Transformation of a r i d d l e metaphor. In P. Maranda, & E. K. K8ngas Maranda, Structural analysis of o r a l  t r a d i t i o n . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971. Kuhn, T. The structure of s c i e n t i f i c revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Leatherdale, W. H. The role of analogy, model and metaphor i n science. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1974. Leondar, B. The structure and function of metaphor. Unpublished doctoral di s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard University, 1968. Lesser, H., & Drouin, C. Training i n the use of double-function terms. Journal'of Psycholinguistic Research, 1975, 285-302. Levi-Strauss, C. Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books, 1963. Levi-Strauss, C. The raw and the cooked. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. (Originally published i n French: Mythologiques I: Le cru et l e  c u i t . P a r i s : Plon, 1964). Levi-Strauss, C. From honey to ashes. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. (Originally published i n French: Mythologiques I I : Du miel aux  cendres. Paris: Plon, 1966). Marx, M.,H. Learning theories. Toronto: Macmillan, 1970. Matthews, R. J. Concerning a ' l i n g u i s t i c theory' of metaphor. Foundations  of Language, 1971, 7_(3), 413-425. McLuhan, M. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Myers, J. L. Fundamentals of experimental design (2nd ed.). Boston: A l l y n & Bacon, 1972. Nelson, L. R. Guide to Lertap use and interpretation. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press, 1974. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1923. Osborn, M. M., & Bowers, J. W. A t t i t u d i n a l effects of selected types of concluding metaphors i n persuasive speeches. Speech Monographs, 1966, 33, 147-155. 99 Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J . , & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of  meaning. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. Paivio, A. Imagery and deep structure i n the r e c a l l of English nominal-izations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971, 10, 1-12. (a) Piavio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1971. (b) Paivio, A. Imagery and synchronic thinking. Canadian Psychological  Review, 1975, 16, 147-163. Paivio, A., Y u i l l e , J. C, & Madigan, S. A. Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental  Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968, 7_6_, (1, Pt. 2). Pepper, S. C. World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1961. Pepper, S. C. The root metaphor theory of metaphysics. In W. Shibles (Ed.), Essays on metaphor. Whitewater, Wisconsin: The Language Press, 1972. P e r f e t t i , C. A. Psychosemantics: Some cognitive aspects of st r u c t u r a l meaning. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1972, 7_8, 241-259. Plath, S. A r i e l . London: Faber & Faber, 1965. P o l l i o , H. R. The st r u c t u r a l basis of word association behavior. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. P o l l i o , M. R., & P o l l i o , H. R. The development of f i g u r a t i v e language i n children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1974, 3_, 185-201. Prince, G. M. The practice of c r e a t i v i t y . New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Rapoport, A., & Fillenbaum, S. Structures i n the subjective lexicon. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Reddy, M. A semantic approach to metaphor. Papers from the F i f t h Regional Meeting, Chicago L i n g u i s t i c s Society, A p r i l 18-19, 1969. Department of L i n g u i s t i c s , University of Chicago, 240-251. Rips, L. J . , Shoben, E. J . , & Smith, E. E. Semantic distance and the v e r i f i c a t i o n of semantic re l a t i o n s . Journal of Verbal Learning  and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 1-20. Rohwer, W. D. Children and adolescents: Should we teach them or l e t them learn? The Educational Researcher, 1972, 1_(7) , 5-11. 100 Rohwer, W. D., & Bean, J. P. Sentence effects and noun-pair learning: A developmental interaction during adolescence. Journal of  Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 15, 521-533. Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, _5, 1-28. Sarbin, T. R. Anxiety: The r e i f i c a t i o n of a metaphor. Archives of  General Psychiatry, 1964, 10, 620-648. Sarbin, T. R. Ontology recapitulates philology: the mythic nature of anxiety. American Psychologist, 1968, 23_, 411-418. Schaeffer, B., & Wallace, R. The comparison of word meanings. Journal  of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 86, 144-152. Shibles, W. A. An analysis of metaphor. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. (a) Shibles, W. A. Metaphor: An annotated bibliography and history. Whitewater, Wisconsin: The Language Press, 1971. (b) Shibles, W. A. (Ed.). Essays on metaphor. Whitewater, Wisconsin: The Language Press, 1972. Simmons, R. F. Some semantic structures for representing English meanings. In J. B. C a r r o l l , & R. 0. Freedle (Eds.), Language comprehension  and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, D.C: Winston, 1972. Storm, J. C Age differences i n the semantic structure of animal terms  and the effects of t r a i n i n g . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Suppes, P. The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 103-114. Thomas, D. Collected poems. London: Dent, 1952. Thomas, 0. Metaphor and related subjects. New York: Random House, 1969. Turner, V. Dramas, f i e l d s , and metaphors: Symbolic action i n human  society. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1974. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking i n young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965. Weinreich, U. Explorations i n semantic theory. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends i n l i n g u i s t i c s (Vol. 3). The Hague: Mouton, 1966. 101 APPENDICES 102 APPENDIX A Transcription of Instructions Recall ( l i s t s 1 and 3) (1) There are many strange expressions i n our language, expressions which are unusual but s t i l l understood. We hear of "a sagging economy" but we know that an economy cannot sag quite l i k e a clothesline can sag. We ta l k of a "sick society", but a society cannot have a cough or fever l i k e a person can. Television advertisements for chewing gum t e l l us that "Spearmint i s straight", but what does that r e a l l y mean? (2) You are now going to hear a l i s t of 24 unusual expressions l i k e these, and some that w i l l be even more unusual. Your f i r s t job w i l l be to t r y to remember as many of them as you can. After you have heard the expressions once you w i l l be asked to count backwards out loud from f i f t y . F i f t y , forty-nine, forty-eight, forty-seven, and so on. The reason for doing t h i s w i l l be explained afterwards. Next, you w i l l hear the f i r s t part of each expression again and your job then w i l l be to write down the rest of the expression i f you can remember i t . Your answer sheets w i l l then be collected and you w i l l be given a new answer sheet and the procedure w i l l be repeated. You w i l l hear the complete expressions, then count backwards out loud from f i f t y , hear the f i r s t part of each expression again, and when you hear each one, write down the rest of the expression i f you can remember i t . I f you can only remember part of the expression write down that part. (3) Each time you hear the l i s t of expressions they w i l l be i n a d i f -ferent order. Don't worry about s p e l l i n g . I f you're not sure how to s p e l l a word write i t the way i t sounds to you. Be sure to put your name and your grade on your answer sheet, and don't worry i f you can't 103 Appendix A (continued) remember some of the expressions because many of them are hard to remember. Are there any questions? (4) Ready. Listen c a r e f u l l y . Do not write anything down. Here are the expressions: (study t r i a l 1) Now count backwards, out loud, f i f t y , forty-nine, forty-eight ... twenty-s i x , twenty-five. OK, now, here i s the f i r s t part of each expression again. As soon as you hear i t , write down the rest of the expression i f you can remember i t . ( r e c a l l t r i a l 1) (5) A l l r i g h t . Be sure that your names are on the answer sheets and then pass them to the front of the room. (co l l e c t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of answer sheets) Here are the complete expressions again. They should be a l i t t l e easier this time. Listen c a r e f u l l y . (study t r i a l 2) Now count backwards out loud. F i f t y , forty-nine, forty-eight ... twenty-s i x , twenty-five. Now here i s the f i r s t part of each expression again. As soon as you hear i t write down the rest of the expression i f you can remember i t . ( r e c a l l t r i a l 2) A l l r i g h t , be sure that your names are on the answer sheets and pass them to the front of the room. Thank you very much. 104 Appendix A (continued) L i k e a b i l i t y ( L i s t s 1 and 3) (1) In the f i r s t session you were asked to try to remember some unusual expressions. In t h i s session we want to fi n d out how much you l i k e or d i s l i k e each of those expressions. You'll be given a page now with each of the expressions printed on i t and asked to rate each expression from 1 to 7 according to how much you l i k e i t . (2) If you l i k e an expression very much c i r c l e the number 7 on the l i n e beside i t . I f you d i s l i k e the expression very much c i r c l e the 1; i f you l i k e i t moderately c i r c l e the 6; i f you d i s l i k e i t moderately c i r c l e the 2; i f you l i k e i t just a l i t t l e c i r c l e the 5; i f you d i s l i k e i t just a l i t t l e c i r c l e the 3; and i f you r e a l l y neither l i k e nor d i s l i k e the expression c i r c l e the 4. When the l i s t i s given to you put your name and grade on i t and go ahead. You'll have about 5 minutes to do the task. There are no right answers. Are there any questions? ( l i k e a b i l i t y task) Comprehension (L i s t s 1 and 3) A l l r i g h t , the next task w i l l be the f i n a l one. This time you w i l l be given a l i s t of the expressions and some possible meanings for each of them. You are to study them ca r e f u l l y and choose the meaning that you think i s the best one from amongst the four choices given. C i r c l e the l e t t e r beside the meaning that you think i s the most correct. There is n ' t always a righ t answer. Just choose the one that you think i s the best of those given. I f you aren't sure what some of the words mean, look them up i n the separate glossary printed i n red. Don't spend too much time on any one expression, but do make a choice for each of them, even i f you have to guess. You w i l l have about 25 minutes to do th i s task which 105 Appendix A (continued) i s about one minute f o r each e x p r e s s i o n , so work c a r e f u l l y but q u i c k l y . Are there any questions? (comprehension task) L i k e a b i l i t y ( L i s t 2) (1) (Same i n s t r u c t i o n s as paragraph 1 of the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r L i s t 1 and 3 r e c a l l t a s k s ) . (2) You are going to be given a l i s t now of 24 unusual e x p r e s s i o n s . We want to f i n d out how much you l i k e or d i s l i k e each of these e x p r e s s i o n s . Besides each e x p r e s s i o n w i l l be the numbers from 1 to 7 and your job w i l l be to r a t e each e x p r e s s i o n according to how much you l i k e i t . (3) (Same i n s t r u c t i o n s as paragraph 2 of the i n s t r u c t i o n s for L i s t 1 and 3 l i k e a b i l i t y t a s k s ) . S i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g ( L i s t 1) For the next task y o u ' l l be given 24 p a i r s of words and asked to judge how s i m i l a r the two concepts or ideas a r e . I f the two concepts have very h i g h s i m i l a r i t y c i r c l e the 5 on the l i n e beside the p a i r of words. I f the two concepts have h i g h s i m i l a r i t y c i r c l e the 4. I f the two concepts have moderate s i m i l a r i t y c i r c l e the 3. I f they have low s i m i l a r i t y c i r c l e the 2, and i f they have very low s i m i l a r i t y , c i r c l e the 1. For example, " c o r d " and "rope" have much s i m i l a r i t y and might be r a t e d 4 or 5, w h i l e " j u s t i c e " and " b a l l o o n " have very l i t t l e s i m i l a r i t y and might be r a t e d only 1 or 2. The meanings of some of the harder words are given i n the separate g l o s s a r y p r i n t e d i n r e d . I t w i l l sometimes be hard to decide how s i m i l a r two ideas a r e . In those cases j u s t use your best judgement. Y o u ' l l have about 15 minutes to do the t a s k . Are there any questions? 106 APPENDIX B L i k e a b i l i t y Scale - L i s t 1 Name Grade DISLIKE VERY MUCH LIKE VERY MUCH Wisdom i s a monk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A ship i s an ocean. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An owner i s a wholesaler. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An obsession i s a franchise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A book i s a reminder. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A doll a r i s a banker. 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 Chance i s an originator. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Winter i s snow. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An increment i s a saloon. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hatred i s a glutton. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A s k i l l e t i s a magnitude. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A horse i s an eccentric. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A thicket i s a c i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A minstrel i s a musician. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A wall i s an entry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Welfare i s food. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A building i s a creator. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An avalanche i s an acrobat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Evidence i s a criminal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Deceit i s a charlatan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 107 Appendix B (continued) An answer i s a problem. A cost i s a patron. Negligence i s poverty. A quantity i s a bonus. DISLIKE VERY MUCH 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 LIKE VERY MUCH 7 7 7 7 108 APPENDIX C Comprehension Scale - L i s t 1 Name Grade C i r c l e the l e t t e r beside the best meaning for each of the following expressions. FOR EXAMPLE: "No man i s an island" means that a) men aren't surrounded by water. b) human beings are land creatures. c) no person i s completely independent. d) women are islands. If you aren't sure of the meanings of some of the words use the glossary printed i n red to help you. 1. "Evidence i s a criminal" means that a) evidence i s used to convict a criminal. b) evidence harms some people. c) both evidence and criminals are connected with the law. d) both evidence and criminals are brought into court. 2. "A thicket i s a c i t y " means that a) a thicket i s one type of c i t y . b) both thickets and c i t i e s have bushes. c) thickets are frequently found i n c i t i e s . d) both thickets and c i t i e s are dense. 3. "A s k i l l e t i s a magnitude" means that a) a s k i l l e t and a magnitude can both be round. b) both a s k i l l e t and a magnitude are sizeable. c) a s k i l l e t i s an example of a magnitude. d) s k i l l e t s and magnitudes are often found together. 4. "Negligence i s poverty" means that a) both negligence and poverty are found i n Vancouver. b) negligence causes poverty. c) negligence i s a type of poverty. d) negligence and poverty both result from something being i n s u f f i c i e n t . 5. "Deceit i s a charlatan" means that a) deceits and charlatans both pretend to be something that they aren't. b) deceits and charlatans are often found together. c) deceits and charlatans are types of i n j u s t i c e . d) both deceits and charlatans are unpleasant. Appendix. C (continued) 6. "An avalanche i s an acrobat" means that a) avalanches and acrobats are f r e q u e n t l y found together. b) an avalanche i s one k i n d of a c r o b a t . c) an avalanche tumbles and r o l l s l i k e an a c r o b a t . d) both avalanches and acrobats f a l l down. 7. "Winter i s snow" means that a) snow i s the most important f e a t u r e of w i n t e r . b) winter and snow are both i c y . c) winter and snow are both c o l d and damp. d) winter and snow o f t e n occur together. 8. "A ship i s an ocean" means that a) both ships and oceans are aspects of s a i l i n g . b) a ship s a i l s on the ocean. c) a ship i s l a r g e and h e a v i l y populated l i k e the ocean. d) both s h i p s and oceans are often grey. 9. "An increment i s a saloon" means that a) increments and saloons are both t h i n g s . b) an increment, l i k e a s a l o o n , i s u s u a l l y s m a l l . c) a s a l a r y increment, l i k e a s a l o o n , can keep people happy. d) s m a l l cost i n c r e a s e s are common i n s a l o o n s . 10. "An answer i s a problem" means that a) both are composed of i d e a s . b) an answer o f t e n produces f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s . c) an answer always has a problem. d) both are p a r t s of t e s t s . 11. "Chance i s an o r i g i n a t o r " means that a) chances and o r i g i n a t o r s both a f f e c t our l i v e s . b) chance and o r i g i n a t o r s both produce unexpected t h i n g s . c) chance i s one k i n d of o r i g i n a t o r . d) o r i g i n a t o r s often take chances. 12. "Welfare i s food" means that a) food and welfare are commonly g i v e n out together. b) food i s a k i n d of w e l f a r e . c) both welfare and food are taken home. d) both food and welfare f u l f i l l needs. Appendix G (continued) 13. "An owner i s a wholesaler" means that a) both owners and wholesalers are types of businessmen. b) both owners and wholesalers use money. c) only owners can be w h o l e s a l e r s . d) owners and wholesalers f r e q u e n t l y meet together. 14. "Wisdom i s a monk" means that a) wisdom and monks are both found i n monasteries. b) monks possess wisdom. c) both wisdom and monks are concerned w i t h t r u t h . d) both wisdom and monks are q u i e t . 15. "Hatred i s a g l u t t o n " means that a) h a t r e d , l i k e a g l u t t o n , i s unpleasant. b) hatred and g l u t t o n s both consume and destroy too much. c) hatred and g l u t t o n y are both types of e v i l . d) g l u t t o n s a r e o f t e n hated. 16. "A q u a n t i t y i s a bonus" means that a) a q u a n t i t y and a bonus often can be found together. b) a q u a n t i t y and a bonus are both amounts. c) a bonus i s an example of q u a n t i t y . d) any amount of something i s b e t t e r than n o t h i n g . 17. "A cost i s a p a t r o n " means that a) both a cost and a patron are aspects of monetary matters b) a p a t r o n pays the c o s t . c) both ' c o s t ' and ' p a t r o n ' are words. d) both a cost and a patron can be connected w i t h a product 18. "A horse i s an e c c e n t r i c " means that a) e c c e n t r i c s often have h o r s e s . b) both e c c e n t r i c s and horses o f t e n walk s t r a n g e l y . c) a horse i s one type of e c c e n t r i c . d) both horses and e c c e n t r i c s can do unusual t h i n g s . 19. "A m i n s t r e l i s a m u s i c i a n " means that a) both m i n s t r e l s and musicians play music. b) m i n s t r e l s and musicians work together. c) a m i n s t r e l i s a type of m u s i c i a n . d) both m i n s t r e l s and musicians l i k e music. 20. "An obsession i s a f r a n c h i s e " means that a) an o b s e s s i o n i s a type of f r a n c h i s e . b) both obsessions and f r a n c h i s e s are concerned with i d e a s . c) t h i n k i n g about something enough makes i t y o u r s . d) people who have obsessions can have f r a n c h i s e s . Appendix C (continued) 21. "A b u i l d i n g i s a c r e a t o r " means that a) each b u i l d i n g makes i t s occupants f e e l l i k e new people. b) both b u i l d i n g s and c r e a t o r s are aspects of a r c h i t e c t u r e . c) b u i l d i n g s and c r e a t o r s are both s t r o n g . d) every b u i l d i n g has a c r e a t o r . 22. "A d o l l a r i s a banker" means that a) bankers have d o l l a r s . b) both d o l l a r s and bankers occupy banks. c) both d o l l a r s and bankers have f a c e s . d) both d o l l a r s and bankers represent w e a l t h . 23. "A book i s a reminder" means that a) a book i s a type of reminder. b) books and reminders are commonly p r i n t e d on paper. c) books and reminders both bear u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n . d) both books and reminders are found on desks. 24. "A w a l l i s an entry" means that a) a w a l l makes you stop and r e a l l y "enter" where you a r e . b) both w a l l s and e n t r i e s are p a r t s of b u i l d i n g s . c) most w a l l s and e n t r i e s are v e r t i c a l . d) most w a l l s have e n t r i e s . APPENDIX D 112 GLOSSARY avalanche -bonus charlatan -deceit eccentric -entry  evidence  franchise -glutton  increment -magnitude -minstrel -monk negligence -obsession -originator -patron poverty -quantity  reminder  saloon skillet  thicket -welfare -wholesaler -a large mass of snow, ice, earth, rock, etc. in swift motion down a mountainside. something given or received that is over and above what is expected. one making especially noisy or showy pretenses to knowledge or ability. the act or practice of deceiving, as by falsification, conceal-ment or cheating. a person that deviates from conventional or accepted conduct, especially in odd or whimsical ways. the place or point at which entry is made. something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof. a right or privilege granted to an individual or group by a government or company. one that eats too much. something that is gained or added. greatness of size or extent. one of a class of medieval musical entertainers. a man who has retired from the world to devote himself to asceticism as a solitary. a failure to exercise the care that a prudent person usually exercises. a persistent and disturbing intrusion of or preoccupation with an idea or feeling. one that causes the beginning of something. one who uses his influence to help or benefit an individual; a regular or steadyrclient. a lack or relative lack of money or material possessions. an indefinite amount or number. something that prompts or aids the memory. an elegant apartment; a room or public establishment in which alcoholic beverages are served, frying pan a dense and usually circumscribed growth of shrubbery or small trees. a condition characterized by good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity; assistance given to improve well-being, a merchant who sells chiefly to retailers, other merchants or institutions. L APPENDIX E Si m i l a r i t y Scale - L i s t 1 Name Grade SIMILARITY VERY VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH HIGH wisdom....monk 1 2 3 4 5 ship....ocean 1 2 3 4 5 owner....wholesaler 1 2 3 4 5 obsession....franchise 1 2 3 4 5 book....reminder 1 2 3 4 5 dollar....banker 1 2 3 4 5 chance....originator 1 2 3 4 5 winter....snow 1 2 3 4 5 increment.... saloon 1 2 3 4 5 hatred....glutton 1 2 3 4 5 skillet....magnitude 1 2 3 4 5 horse....eccentric 1 2 3 4 5 th i c k e t . . . . c i t y 1 2 3 4 5 minstrel....musician 1 2 3 4 5 wa l l . . . . entry 1 2 3 4 5 welfare....food 1 2 3 4 5 building....creator 1 2 3 4 5 avalanche....acrobat 1 2 3 4 5 evidence....criminal 1 2 3 4 5 deceit....charlatan 1 2 3 4 5 answer....problem 1 2 3 4 5 114 Appendix E (continued) VERY VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH HIGH c o s t . . . p a t r o n 1 2 3 4 5 n e g l i g e n c e . . . . p o v e r t y 1 2 3 4 5 q u a n t i t y . . . . b o n u s 1 2 3 4 5 115 APPENDIX F Random Orders of Items for L i s t 1 Tasks Task Item Order Recall Study T r i a l 1 6,17,23,9,13,19,24,12,21,7,5,2,10,16,22,1, 8,3,20,15.18,14,4. Test T r i a l 1 24,18,5,17,13,4,15,14,22,19,20,6,1,21,11, 12,8,9,3,10,7,16,2,23. Study T r i a l 2 8,13,18,2,23,24,1,19,11,12,3,15,17,10,5, 21,4,14,22,20,6,9,16,7. Test T r i a l 2 20,4,5,23,14,17,12,7,19,8,18,22,2,1,10, 15,21,13,16,24,9,11,3,6. L i k e a b i l i t y Scale 12,7,14,17,13,8,18,15,19,20,21,22,23,16, 5,11,6,14,10,1,2,3,9. Comprehension and S i m i l a r i t y 4,23,21,3,10,24,15,7,19,1,18,11,14,12,20, Scales 9,2,22,16,17,6.8,13,5. 116 APPENDIX G L i k e a b i l i t y Scale - L i s t 2 Name ' Grade DISLIKE VERY MUCH LIKE VERY MUCH A t o r t o i s e i s a tank. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A code i s a henchman. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A nun i s a monk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An octopus i s a busybody. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A s o l d i e r i s a butcher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A teacher i s a p r o f e s s o r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An apple i s a b u t l e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A typhoon i s a h u r r i c a n e . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A car i s a tr u c k . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A potato i s a m i n s t r e l . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A c i g a r i s a shoulder. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A f l a s k i s a tower. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DISLIKE LIKE A s u l t a n i s a baron. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A doctor i s a nurse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A l o b s t e r i s a.scorpion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A mountain i s a strawberry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A ship i s a grocer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fingers are tweezers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An accordion i s a s i n g e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A dog i s a c a t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An avalanche i s an acrobat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix G (continued) DISLIKE A c i t y i s a t h i c k e t . 1 An i c e b e r g i s a bagpipe. 1 A horse i s an engine. 1 118 APPENDIX H L i k e a b i l i t y Scale - L i s t 3 Name ' Grade DISLIKE LIKE VERY VERY MUCH MUCH The decoy encourages the p o s i t i o n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The item indicates the cheese. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The perception abandons the incid e n t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Truth f o l d s the advantage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mastery establishes j u s t i c e . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The j e l l y obtains the sugar. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The s a l t bans the trade. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The earth caresses the emotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The length cheers the o r i g i n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The q u a l i t y defeats the d e s c r i p t i o n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The pebble ousts the r i v e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The p r a i r i e questions the d i s t i n c t i o n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The piano condemns boredom. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The estimate f l a t t e r s the cost. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The lan t e r n attends the c e l l a r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The claim permits the sky. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The balloon c r i n k l e s the a i r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The agreement speaks the deceit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The d a f f o d i l c r i p p l e s the shadow. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The basin whimpers the idea. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 119 Appendix H (continued) Ignorance interviews the jungle. The hammer sketches the lumber. The i l l u s i o n tramples the mirage. The assumption climbs the tree. DISLIKE VERY MUCH 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 LIKE VERY MUCH 7 7 7 7 120 APPENDIX J Comprehension Scale - L i s t 3 Name ' Grade C i r c l e the l e t t e r beside the best meaning for each of the following expressions. FOR EXAMPLE: "No man i s an islan d " means that a) men aren't surrounded by water. b) human beings are land creatures. c) no person i s completely independent. d) women are islands. If you aren't sure of the meanings of some of the words use the glossary printed i n red to help you. 1. "Ignorance interviews the jungle" means that a) jungle dwellers should t a l k to trees. b) there's a l o t to be learned about jungles. c) a f o o l i s h person tr i e s , to do the impossible. d) interviewers prefer t r o p i c a l climates. 2. "The balloon crinkles the a i r " means that a) containers affect t h e i r contents. b) burning rubber pollutes the atmosphere. c) a balloon compresses the a i r inside i t . d) a balloon makes c r i n k l i n g noises as i t f l o a t s . 3. "Mastery establishes j u s t i c e " means that a) good s k i l l s are found i n democratic countries. b) power produces the law. c) the wolf k i l l s the lamb. d) union leaders build the courthouses. 4'. "The length cheers the o r i g i n " means that a) long l i v e s have cheerful moments. b) the beginning of a long t r i p i s the most pleasant part. c) long distance runners are cheered mostly at the st a r t of the race. d) long tasks require early s t a r t s . 121 Appendix J (continued) 5. "The c l a i m permits the sky" means that a) There i s no l i m i t to the r i g h t s granted by the document. b) The clouds permit the sun to shine through. c) p i l o t s are r e s t r i c t e d to s e l e c t e d a r e a s . d) Buying a t i c k e t allows you to f l y . 6. "The s a l t bans the trade" means that a) the Great S a l t Desert can be crossed by camel. b) sodium c h l o r i d e i s subject to t a x a t i o n . c) the ocean makes commerce d i f f i c u l t . d) s a l t i n sugar .might stop someone from buying i t . 7. "The d a f f o d i l c r i p p l e s the shadow" means that a) good things weaken e v i l t h i n g s . b) c r i p p l e d people need c h e e r f u l t h i n g s . c) flowers can be dangerous. d) f lowers b r i g h t e n dark p l a c e s . 8. "The q u a l i t y defeats the d e s c r i p t i o n " means that a) the best things are beyond d e s c r i p t i o n . b) good teams can beat good-looking teams. c) well-made products are best i n the l o n g - r u n . d) things that are most e a s i l y d e s c r i b e d are the b e s t . 9. "The p e r c e p t i o n abandons the i n c i d e n t " means that a) poor v i s i o n causes a c c i d e n t s . b) o b s e r v a t i o n f a i l s to confirm the event. c) no one sees what happens. d) someone l o s e s t h e i r e y e s i g h t . 10. "The l a n t e r n attends the c e l l a r " means that a) knowledge i s discovered i n h i g h p l a c e s . b) lamps can be used i n basements. c) t r u e help goes where i t i s needed most. d) gas l a n t e r n s are b e t t e r than e l e c t r i c ones i n c e l l a r s . 11. "The p r a i r i e questions the d i s t i n c t i o n " means that a) on the p r a i r i e h i l l s are not much d i f f e r e n t from v a l l e y s . b) l a r g e things make s m a l l things seem l e s s important. c) p r a i r i e people ask questions about each mountain. d) there i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the p r a i r i e and the f o r e s t . 12. "The hammer sketches the lumber" means that a) the hammer h i t s the n a i l . b) the strongman draws a p i c t u r e of the wood. c) the t o o l s a v a i l a b l e determine the m a t e r i a l s to be used... d) the t o o l s destroy the m a t e r i a l s . 122 Appendix J (continued) 13. "The estimate f l a t t e r s the cost" means that a) we often expect things to turn out worse than they do. b) the estimated price makes the true price look good. c) high prices result i n l o s t money. d) great expectations need encouragement. 14. "The decoy encourages the position" means that a) a decoy encourages hunters to come near. b) a decoy aids i n hunting. c) a lure i s usually a t t r a c t i v e . d) a good example improves performance. 15. "The basin whimpers the idea" means that a) lowland areas produce bountiful harvests. b) the treasurer bravely makes a suggestion. c) sounds from a leaking container can give someone an idea. d) gurgling noises i n the sink sound l i k e words. 16. "Truth folds the advantage" means that a) having the correct analysis of a problem doubles up one's chances of solving i t . b) folding the newspaper makes delivery easier. c) t e l l i n g the truth turns good things your way. d) having the correct b e l i e f s i s an advantage i n l i f e . 17. "The piano condemns boredom" means that a) music can eliminate d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . b) piano was developed for orchestral music. c) piano lessons are boring. d) playing the piano can get one excited. 18. "The earth caresses the emotion" means that a) everybody feels the earth. b) nature soothes feelings. c) feelings are a central part of nature. d) the earth feels good. 19. "The assumption climbs the tree" means that a) the wind blows the f i r s t page of the philosophy paper up the tree. b) the theory involves several t r e e - l i k e diagrams. c) the dog chases the cat up the tree. d) the assumption has effects at each l e v e l of the theory. 123 Appendix J (continued) 20. "The j e l l y obtains the sugar" means that a) a smooth s o f t approach y i e l d s good r e s u l t s . b) the f a t man takes the candy. c) weakness i s easy to o b t a i n . d) only water i s added to j e l l y powder. 21. "The item i n d i c a t e s the cheese" means that a) the shopping l i s t says "cheddar". b) the a r t i c l e suggest a p a r t i c u l a r d a i r y product . c) the s i g n p o i n t s to the cow. d) something marks the spot. 22. "The pebble ousts the r i v e r " means that a) great things have s m a l l o r i g i n s . b) pebbles are found at the bottom of r i v e r s . c) s m a l l things can a l t e r the course of events. d) pebbles can d e f l e c t water. 23. "The agreement speaks the d e c e i t " means that a) armies o n l y pretend to stop f i g h t i n g . b) the l e t t e r t e l l s the t r u t h . c) the agreement i s honest. d) the t r e a t y i n d i c a t e s d i s t r u s t . 24. "The i l l u s i o n tramples the mirage" means that a) one scene always r e p l a c e s another scene. b) mistaken ideas are often more f o r c e f u l than unusual o b s e r v a t i c) seeing i s b e l i e v i n g . d) o p t i c a l i l l u s i o n s and mirages a r e n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l . 124 APPENDIX K GLOSSARY "B" abandons  advantage  assumption c l a i m cost  d e c e i t decoy -d i s t i n c t i o n -emotion e s t a b l i s h e s -estimate f l a t t e r s ignorance i l l u s i o n i n c i d e n t i n d i c a t e s -item j u s t i c e mastery  mirage ousts p e r c e p t i o n -q u a l i t y  sketches  whimpers -caresses condemns gives up by l e a v i n g , withdrawing, e t c . ; forsakes or d e s e r t s , a more f a v o r a b l e or improved c o n d i t i o n or p o s i t i o n , the act of taking f o r granted or supposing that a t h i n g i s t r u e , a demand of a r i g h t or supposed r i g h t ; an a s s e r t i o n , s t a t e -ment or i m p l i c a t i o n . the amount p a i d f o r anything bought or f o r s e r v i c e rendered, the act or p r a c t i c e of d e c e i v i n g as by f a l s i f i c a t i o n , c o n -cealment or c h e a t i n g . something intended to a l l u r e or e n t i c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n t o a t r a p . the act of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g a d i f f e r e n c e ; something that d i s -t i n g u i s h e s one t h i n g from another, the a f f e c t i v e aspect of consciousness; f e e l i n g , b r i n g s i n t o e x i s t e n c e ; c r e a t e s ; founds. an e v a l u a t i o n or judgement, e s p e c i a l l y from incomplete d a t a , p r a i s e s e x c e s s i v e l y , e s p e c i a l l y from motives of s e l f - i n t e r e s t , the s t a t e of being unaware or uninformed. a m i s l e a d i n g image presented to the v i s i o n ; something that deceives or misleads i n t e l l e c t u a l l y . an occurrence of an a c t i o n or s i t u a t i o n f e l t as a separate u n i t of experience. p o i n t s toward with more or l e s s exactness. an i n d i v i d u a l t h i n g or d e t a i l s i n g l e d out from a number of o t h e r s ; an object of a t t e n t i o n or concern. the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; the q u a l i t y of being i m p a r t i a l or f a i r . the p o s s e s s i o n of s k i l l or technique. an o p t i c a l phenomenon often observed on s t i l l days over d e s e r t s or hot pavement. e jects or puts out from a p o s i t i o n or p l a c e . awareness of the elements of environment through p h y s i c a l s e n s a t i o n . degree of e x c e l l e n c e or conformance to a s t a n d a r d , o u t l i n e s , draws or d e s c r i b e s the c h i e f features o f . makes a low whining p l a i n t i v e or broken sound. touches or strokes i n a l o v i n g or endearing manner, pronounces as i l l - a d v i s e d , wrong or e v i l ; judges to be u n f i t f o r use or s e r v i c e . 125 APPENDIX L Random Orders of Items for L i s t 3 Tasks Task Item Order Recall Study T r i a l 1 12,20,21,15,6,9,23,4,11,24,10,14,18,17, 2,7,13.5.8,16,1,3,19,22. Test T r i a l 1 16,21,2,10,7,8,9,3,19,20,11,23,1,18,13, 5,12,22,6,4,14,17,24,15. Study T r i a l 2 13,6,17,5,1,16,3,2,10,7,8,18,12,9,23, 24,20,21,15,22,19,4,14,11. Test T r i a l 2 3,24,21,17,19,22,12,6,12,16,15,1,5,8, 11,13,4,14,10,20,9,7,2,18. L i k e a b i l i t y Scale 20,2,9,11,1,6,4,15,19,17,22,23,12,18, 14,10,16,3,24,7,21,8,13,5. Comprehension Scale 21,16,1,19,10,4,24,17,9,14,23,8,18,20, 7,11,12,15,5,6,2,22,3,13. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076970/manifest

Comment

Related Items