Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the effects of metaphor on seventh-grade students’ comprehension of expository text Mercer, Kay Louise 1985

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 M47.pdf [ 6.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078302.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078302-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078302-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078302-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078302-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078302-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078302-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078302-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078302.ris

Full Text

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF METAPHOR ON SEVENTH-GRADE STUDENTS' COMPREHENSION OF EXPOSITORY TEXT by KAY LOUISE B.A. , U n i v e r s i t y  MERCER  of Queensland,  B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y  of A l b e r t a ,  1974 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Language E d u c a t i o n  We a c c e p t to  THE  this  thesis  the required  Department  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH September  ©  COLUMBIA  1985  Kay L o u i s e M e r c e r ,  1985  In  presenting  this thesis  requirements  f o r an  advanced  Columbia,  I agree that  available  for  permission  or  her  reference  be  granted  of  copying  Department  of  my  written  Language  September  1985  of  the  shall  i s understood for  Columbia  agree for  Department that  f i n a n c i a l gain  permission.  of  British  make i t f r e e l y  this thesis my  the  University  I further  Head of  Education  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date:  the  It  this thesis  without  study.  by  f u l f i l m e n t of  degree at  Library  and  representatives.  publication allowed  the  for extensive  p u r p o s e s may  in p a r t i a l  that scholarly or  copying shall  not  by or be  his  i i  Abstract This  study  children's grade  comprehension  students  versions  investigated  of e x p o s i t o r y  read e i t h e r  o f two t e x t s  t h e e f f e c t s o f metaphor on  the metaphorical  each c o n t a i n i n g  metaphors or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t Bears," described other,  possible, read  a topic  students o r a l l y  written  topic.  of t h e t e x t s  After  "Polar  also  reading as  Students  who  completed a  t e s t a s an a d d i t i o n a l  texts  between s t u d e n t s '  and t h e i r c o m p r e h e n s i o n  T h e r e was, however, a f a c i l i t a t i v e  on  students'  of  the text  information correct  One t e x t ,  measure o f  comprehension.  metaphoric  texts.  that i s ,  r e c a l l e d a s much i n f o r m a t i o n  versions  T h e r e was n o . d i f f e r e n c e the  phrases.  an u n f a m i l i a r  recognition-of-meaning  metaphor  targets,  and t h e n a n s w e r e d o r a l p r o b e q u e s t i o n s .  the metaphoric  seventh-  or the l i t e r a l  eight  literal  Forty-six  f a m i l i a r t o the students while the  "Wombats," d e s c r i b e d  each t e x t ,  text.  comprehension was u n f a m i l i a r . conveyed  Students'  text  than  ability  of t h e l i t e r a l  effect  information  S t u d e n t s were a b l e  f o r metaphor when t h e t o p i c  to r e c a l l the  by t h e m e t a p h o r s a n d t o r e c o g n i z e t h e  interpretations  unfamiliar  of t a r g e t  comprehension of  of the metaphors b e t t e r  from t h e  from t h e f a m i l i a r m e t a p h o r i c  t o answer  factual questions  text.  b a s e d on t h e  m e t a p h o r s , however, was no d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e f a m i l i a r t e x t it  was f r o m t h e u n f a m i l i a r  text.  This  as  d e m o n s t r a t i n g an e f f e c t o f a k i n d ,  affected  the o t h e r measures of probed  familiar  topic.  f i n d i n g was for topic recall  The d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s  than  interpreted  significantly  i n favour  of the f r e e  of the  r e c a l l and  r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g m e a s u r e s , and regarding task  of t h e s e  were l i k e l y  due  s e t s of measures.  recall  measures  to the  different  I t was  noted  i s a need  for further  r e s e a r c h on  the  of t h e s e  widely-used  m e a s u r e s of  comprehension.  nature It  was  frequency  concluded  interpret.  which c h i l d r e n If children  comprehending benefit  that  from  vocabulary,  need t o be  i s not  are experiencing  curriculum a c t i v i t i e s experience with  knowledge of t h e  and  world.  a troublesome  taught  t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors,  their  relationship  that  a l t h o u g h metaphors appear with  i n b a s a l r e a d e r s , metaphor  language  their  comprehension  constraints  there  of  target  the probe  aspect  t o a n a l y z e and  to  difficulties they w i l l  designed language  some  likely  to develop and  their  literature,  and  iv  T a b l e of C o n t e n t s  Abstract .. . L i s t of T a b l e s L i s t of F i g u r e s Acknowledgement  i i v vi v i i  Chapter I INTRODUCTION  1  1 . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  1  2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM  1  3. NEED FOR THE STUDY  4  4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 4.1 E f f e c t Of M e t a p h o r 4.2 E f f e c t Of T o p i c On M e t a p h o r i c T e x t s 5. DEFINITONS OF TERMS 5.1 M e t a p h o r T e r m i n o l o g y 5.2 E x p e r i m e n t a l T e x t T e r m i n o l o g y . 5.3 C o m p r e h e n s i o n T e r m i n o l o g y  -  5 6 7 8 8 8 .....9  6 . ASSUMPTIONS  10  7. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY  11  Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE  12  1. THEORIES OF METAPHOR 1.1 The S u b s t i t u t i o n T h e o r y 1.2 C o m p a r i s o n T h e o r i e s Of M e t a p h o r 1.3 The I n t e r a c t i o n T h e o r y  12 13 14 18  2. METAPHOR IN CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION 2.1 P r o d u c t i o n 2.2 C o m p r e h e n s i o n 2.2.1 S h o r t C o n t e x t C o n d i t i o n 2.2.2 L o n g C o n t e x t C o n d i t i o n  PRODUCTION  AND  3. SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY  21 21 25 26 37 47  Chapter I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  53  1. SUBJECTS  53  2. THE EXPERIMENTAL TEXTS  54  V  3. THE 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7  MEASURING INSTRUMENTS The C a n a d i a n T e s t Of B a s i c S k i l l s P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t Oral Free R e c a l l s Probed R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probe Debriefing Interviews P i l o t T e s t i n g Of The M e a s u r i n g I n s t r u m e n t s  4. THE EXPERIMENTAL  PROCEDURE  5. THE SCORING OF DATA 5.1 P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t 5.2 O r a l F r e e R e c a l l s 5.2.1 C o n s t r u c t i o n Of The T e x t Base T e m p l a t e 5.2.2 A n a l y s i s And C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Of The P r o t o c o l s 5.2.3 S c o r i n g The P r o t o c o l s 5.3 P r o b e d R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s 5.4 M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e M e t a p h o r P r o b e s 5.5 D e b r i e f i n g I n t e r v i e w s 6. THE ANALYSIS OF DATA  57 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 63 63 64 64 ....65 66 66 66 67 67  C h a p t e r IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS  68  1. EFFECT OF METAPHOR  70  2. EFFECT OF TOPIC ON METAPHORIC TEXTS 72 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 78 3.1 F i n d i n g R e g a r d i n g The E f f e c t Of M e t a p h o r 78 3.2 F i n d i n g s R e g a r d i n g The E f f e c t Of T o p i c On M e t a p h o r i c Texts 78 Chapter V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  80  1. THE EFFECT OF METAPHOR ON COMPREHENSION  80  2. THE EFFECT OF TOPIC ON COMPREHENSION OF METAPHORIC TEXTS 82 3. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE 4. CONCLUSIONS  90 .91  5. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH  92  BIBLIOGRAPHY  96  APPENDIX  A - FAMILIAR TEXT  105  APPENDIX  B - UNFAMILIAR  106  TEXT  vi  APPENDIX C - PRIOR KNOWLEDGE PRETEST  107  1 . PART A  1 07  2. PART B  108  3. PART C  109  APPENDIX D - TEXT BASE TEMPLATE - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC  .112  APPENDIX E - ORAL FREE RECALL PROTOCOL - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC  114  APPENDIX F - PROBED RECALL QUESTIONS  115  APPENDIX G - MULTIPLE-CHOICE METAPHOR PROBE  117  APPENDIX H - DEBRIEFING INTERVIEW SCHEDULE APPENDIX I - TABLES  121 122  vi i  List  of Tables  I.  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Experimental  II.  T o p i c Means f o r M e t a p h o r i c Measures  Texts  III.  ANOVA f o r O r a l  Measures  IV.  ANOVA f o r P r o b e d  V.  MANOVA  for Incidental  VI.  MANOVA  f o r Evoked O r a l  Free R e c a l l  126  VII.  MANOVA  for Target Oral  Free R e c a l l  127  VIII.  MANOVA  for Factual  IX.  MANOVA  for Incidental  X.  MANOVA  for Inferential  Free R e c a l l Recall  Texts  56  on P r o b e d  Recall 77 ,  Measures  Oral  Probed  Free  123 .124  Recall  Recall  Factual  Probed  Probed  Recall  125  128 Recall  129 130  vi ii  List  1. 2.  of  Figures  S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n Between V e r s i o n on T a r g e t O r a l Free R e c a l l  and T o p i c  S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n Between V e r s i o n on I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l  and T o p i c  74 76  ix  Acknowledgement The c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y was assistance, cooperation and support thanks a r e due:  made p o s s i b l e with the o f many i n d i v i d u a l s . My  To my advisor, Marion Crowhurst, encouragement and i n v a l u a b l e g u i d a n c e . and  To t h e members Lee Gunderson--for  for  her  constant  o f my e x a m i n i n g c o m m i t t e e — J a n e t h e i r support and c r i t i c i s m .  Catterson  To my f e l l o w graduate students—Catherine Watson, C a r l m a n , Sydney C r a i g , F r a n c e s F i s h e r and J o a n G i d e o n — f o r v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e and c r i t i c i s m .  Nancy their  To members o f t h e F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n — W a l t e r B o l d t and Don A l l i s o n — m e m b e r s o f t h e Computing Centre—Calvin L a i and Chinh Le—and Graduate Student A s s i s t a n t s of the Education R e s e a r c h S t u d y C e n t r e - - B o b P r o s s e r , M i k e McRae a n d Warren W e i r - for their advice and a s s i s t a n c e with research design and statistical analysis. To members o f t h e Language Education Department--Roy B e n t l e y , Frank Bertram and Syd B u t l e r - - f o r their interest and criticism. To L i n d a K a s e r , A d r i e n n e Downie, C a r o l Lodge, A l Z a r c h i k o f f and the students o f James M c K i n n e y S c h o o l and W i l l i a m B r i d g e School i n School District #38 (Richmond) for their willing cooperation. To Mr. B l a c k m o r e , Mr. O ' C o n n e l l and t h e s t u d e n t s o f S t . G e o r g e ' s J u n i o r S c h o o l f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and c o o p e r a t i o n . To ERIBC. T h i s study was completed with the financial assistance of a research g r a n t from the E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia. To my parents, Doug u n d e r s t a n d i n g and s u p p o r t .  and  Rosemary  Mercer,  for  their  To my good friend, Jerry Carlson, for h i s invaluable a s s i s t a n c e , p a t i e n c e and s t e a d f a s t encouragement.  1  I. 1.  INTRODUCTION  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The  present  a facilitative  study examines  effect  purpose of t h i s  the hypothesis that  on r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n .  familiar 2.  and u n f a m i l i a r  BACKGROUND OF THE Since  metaphor 1964;  have  the g e n e r a l employed  primarily  quite  recently  1980;  Pollio,  different  exploded; has been  t h e 1970's,  now g e n e r a l l y language  Honeck,  1980; J o h n s o n  acknowledged  functioning  1980; J o h n s o n  Barlow, F i n e Research  & Pollio,  Nevertheless,  language  1977).  form  &  until  Malgady,  A somewhat  prevails.•  in figurative  language has  i n language and t h i n k i n g  linguists,  & Malgady,  a n d one t h a t  may  1980).  of n a t u r a l  1972; Hoffman 1980a;  & McCarrell,  i n the v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s  Metaphor i s  be e s s e n t i a l t o  1980; O r t o n y ,  1977; V e r b r u g g e  p s y c h o l o g i s t s and  aspect  even  1976; Emig,  & Malgady,  i t s n a t u r e and  1972; J o h n s o n  as a p e r v a s i v e  (Arter,  (Anderson,  discarded.  now g e n e r a l l y  by p h i l o s o p h e r s ,  functioning,  cognitive  & Pollio,  interest  about  o r n a m e n t a t i o n , was common  t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f metaphor  (Honeck,  on  texts with  speculated  t h e o r i e s about  i s a special  for stylistic  o f metaphor  have  phenomenon  ( C a m p b e l l , 1975; Emig,  affirmed  educators  metaphor  Barlow, F i n e  view  Since  and l i t e r a r y  b o t h d e v e l o p e d and been that  o f metaphor  of e x p o s i t o r y  scholars  1980), a n d v a r i o u s  view  specific  PROBLEM  as a l i n g u i s t i c  function  has  topics.  t h e time of P l a t o ,  Johnson,  The  s t u d y i s t o examine t h e e f f e c t s  seventh g r a d e - s t u d e n t s ' comprehension  metaphor  has c e n t r e d  & Pollio,  1977). on s u c h  2  q u e s t i o n s a s : When, where a n d why do p e o p l e u s e m e t a p h o r ? and  how do t h e y u n d e r s t a n d m e t a p h o r ?  of metaphor What  relate  insights  t o the comprehension  does  metaphor a l l o w i n t o  connections  between l a n g u a g e  cognition?  (Johnson  1978; Fine  development language,  1977).  TePaske  of c h i l d r e n ' s  a n d (b) t h e e f f e c t s  comprehension  & Hyser,  abilities  and l e a r n i n g .  and l a n g u a g e a n d Reynolds  f o c u s s e d on ( a )  to deal  of metaphor  with  device of  this  that  (e.g., Ortony,  metaphor c a n t r a n s f e r  that  was on t h i s  the notion  metaphor  interest, verbal  effect  in instructional  recall  ability.  hypotheses,  that  from  1979) c l a i m  t h e known (thetopic  Arter  to find  and H y s e r  Pearson  Proponents that  her hypotheses  increase  f o r s t u d e n t s o f h i g h a n d low definitive  support  f o r t h e low v e r b a l  ability  group.  (1979).  e t a l . (1979) c o n d u c t e d a s e r i e s  f o r her  facilitative  (1976) r e s e a r c h m o t i v a t e d a s e t o f s t u d i e s by P e a r s o n , TePaske  notion  of t h e metaphor).  b u t f o u n d some e v i d e n c e f o r a g e n e r a l  on l e a r n i n g  that  (the v e h i c l e of  (1976) b a s e d  m a t e r i a l s would  and comprehension She f a i l e d  This  a n d an unknown t o p i c .  1975; P e t r i e ,  knowledge  claim  figurative  metaphor a c t s as a b r i d g i n g  t h e m e t a p h o r ) t o t h e new o r unknown It  the  The p r e s e n t s t u d y c e n t r e s on t h e  between a known v e h i c l e view  Barlow,  i n t e x t on  metaphor has " p e d a g o g i c a l " v a l u e f o r t h e r e a d e r . from t h e a s s e r t i o n  & Arter,  1979; P o l l i o ,  s e c o n d o f t h e s e two f o c u s e s , a n d i n v e s t i g a t e s  derives  language?  the hypothesized  1980; O r t o n y ,  E d u c a t o r s have  the comprehension  of l i t e r a l  and p e r c e p t i o n ,  & Malgady,  Pearson, Raphael, & Pollio,  How does  When  of three  Arter's Raphael,  3  experiments  i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f metaphor and  familiarity  on  the a b i l i t y  undergraduates, three  major  First, was  found  that  and  literal  often  paraphrases  device  familiarity;  c o n t e n t was  passage  material  greater  memorability.  appeared because elicit did  t o be  was  appeared  literal  Third,  they  metaphors  recall  of  vehicles  Second, the  t o depend upon  role passage  f a m i l i a r , m e t a p h o r s were counterparts,  idea  found  surface  that  but  when  of s u r r o u n d i n g  idea  units containing  metaphor e f f e c t s  structure  units containing  recall  the t a r g e t  their  (1976).  l e s s f a m i l i a r , m e t a p h o r s seemed t o assume  l i m i t e d to t h e i r  the t a r g e t better  their  than,  of  and  report  Arter  recall  the s u b j e c t s .  of metaphor a s a b r i d g i n g  no more memorable t h a n  extended  adults'  better  They  i n s i t u a t i o n s where t h e  t h e m e t a p h o r s were known by  when p a s s a g e  sixth-graders  remember t e x t .  c h i l d r e n and  as good a s , and  comparable of  to understand  f i n d i n g s w h i c h s u p p o r t e d and  they  always  of t h i r d - g r a d e r s ,  topic  boundaries,  m e t a p h o r s d i d not  i n c i d e n t a l idea only  the  units  than  literal  equivalents. The Pearson device  present  et a l . (1979),  f o c u s e s on t h e that  t o depend on p a s s a g e  study  of t h e e f f e c t of t o p i c  hypothesized  facilitative  inconsistencies general  i n the  facilitative ability  somewhat  second  familiarity. familiarity  The on  bridging need f o r  the  e f f e c t of metaphor a r i s e s because  literature.  While  Arter  e f f e c t of metaphor on  students with a text  familiar in topic  f i n d i n g made by  t h e r o l e o f metaphor as a  appears  further  verbal  study  that  to subjects,  (1976) f o u n d  learning  was  of  for  low  unexpectedly  Pearson  et_ a l . (1979)  a  4  found  significant  unfamiliar about  texts.  their  effects Pearson  judgements  f i n d i n g s of the t h i r d previous effect into  of f a m i l i a r i t y , experiment  f o r the r e c a l l  recall  that  Pearson  idea  units  passages.  consistent  et a l . concluded that of t h i s  by a p p l y i n g  w i t h t h e t o p i c s of  familiarity  with text  by P e a r s o n  e t §_1.) t o measure t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n  3.  recognition  t o an o r a l  t o p i c s , and  m e t a p h o r s embedded i n  and (b) a p a r a p h r a s e  probed  a n d new  o f : (a) a p r i o r - k n o w l e d g e  of the t a r g e t  in addition  of P e a r s o n  population  the t e x t s ,  metaphors,' u s e d  only  issue"(p.16).  i t to a different  t o measure s u b j e c t ' s  familiarity  "....we h a v e  familiarity  The m o d i f i c a t i o n s c o n s i s t  knowledge o f t h e v e h i c l e s  with the  or f o r i n t r u s i o n s  p r e s e n t study m o d i f i e s the methodology  a l . ( 1979),  pre-test  however, b e c a u s e t h e  T h e r e was u n e x p e c t e d l y no  were t h e m a t i c a l l y  in their  reservations  were i n c o n s i s t e n t  of i n c i d e n t a l  begun t o t a p t h e s u r f a c e The  of metaphors o n l y  e t a l . e x p r e s s e d some  two e x p e r i m e n t s .  the passage.  et  for recall  free  test  ( a s recommended of t h e t a r g e t  recall  t a s k and  r e c a l l questions.  NEED FOR THE. STUDY Metaphor  (Arlin, Smith,  o c c u r s w i t h some f r e q u e n c y i n b a s a l  1978; A r t e r , 1983),  Although  1976; G a m b e l l  and i n c h i l d r e n ' s  literature  i t h a s been s u g g e s t e d t h a t  troublesome  a s p e c t of language  & McFetridge,  language  s t u d e n t s need  ( A s c h & N e r l o v e , 1960; C o r b e t t , 1976; Cunningham, 1972;  Gambell  & McFetridge,  1979;  and Winner, R o s e n t i e l  1981; S m i t h , & Gardner,  1981; V a l e r i  (Winkeljohann,  figurative  w i t h which  readers &  1979).  c a n be a help  1976; E m i g ,  1973; W i n k e l j o h a n n ,  1976),  there are studies  5  which suggest  t h a t , under c e r t a i n  have a f a c i l i t a t i v e this  on c o m p r e h e n s i o n  i s so, i t i s important  facilitation or  effect  or both  q u e s t i o n s which w i l l studies.  There  investigation reading  for continuing  of f i g u r a t i v e  in ecologically  valid  a sound t h e o r e t i c a l  about c u r r i c u l u m e x p e r i e n c e s will  to  been d e s i g n e d  1981; M i l l e r ,  research  language settings,  upon so t h a t  and t o t e a c h e r s  teaching  techniques  knowledge o f l a n g u a g e 1974).  to contribute to this  examine t h e e f f e c t s  comprehension  i s of a s s i s t a n c e  base c a n be made t o  and s p e c i f i c  enhance c h i l d r e n ' s growing  (Gambell.k M c F e t r i d g e , has  i n v o l v e d i n such  systematic  p u b l i s h e r s and w r i t e r s of c h i l d r e n ' s t e x t s ,  that  If  Whether metaphor  the e f f e c t s  from  and l e a r n i n g .  be a n s w e r e d o n l y by f u r t h e r  comprehension  recommendations  may  under v a r y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r e  i s a need  into  metaphor  that the f a c t o r s  be i d e n t i f i e d .  a hindrance,  circumstances,  The p r e s e n t  process.  I t s purpose i s  o f m e t a p h o r on s e v e n t h - g r a d e  of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s w i t h  familiar  study  students'  and u n f a m i l i a r  topics. 4.  RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Following  following  two c l a s s e s o f n u l l  (1) t h e e f f e c t metaphoric  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p r e v i o u s hypotheses  theory  were made  o f m e t a p h o r , and (2) t h e e f f e c t  texts.  and r e s e a r c h the concerning:  of t o p i c  on  6  4.1  Effect This  between and  Of M e t a p h o r study proposes  that  there  s t u d e n t s ' comprehension  their  comprehension  equivalents  will  of t e x t s  of t e x t s  of the metaphors.  be no  containing  containing  Specific  difference metaphors  the l i t e r a l  hypotheses  a r e as  follows: (1) S t u d e n t s ' f r e e Metaphoric  texts  significantly  recall  and t h e i r  from M e t a p h o r i c  texts  significantly  recall  of M e t a p h o r i c  Literal  texts  texts  from M e t a p h o r i c  texts  significantly  texts  text  a r e not  information  from L i t e r a l  texts are  present i n students' free  a n d t h e number  recall  in their  recalls  of  different.  of F a c t u a l recall  text  information  from L i t e r a l  texts are  different. recall  from M e t a p h o r i c  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y (6) The number a n d t h e number  significantly  ideas  and t h e i r  (5) S t u d e n t s ' p r o b e d  texts  recall  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (4) S t u d e n t s ' p r o b e d  texts  of I n c i d e n t a l  and t h e i r  of Evoked  recalls  information  from L i t e r a l  from  different.  (3) The number  not  recall  information  different.  (2) S t u d e n t s ' f r e e  not  of Target t e x t  texts  of I n c i d e n t a l and t h e i r  recall  from  text Literal  different.  o f I n f e r e n c e s from from t a r g e t s  different.  Factual  targets  in Literal  i n Metaphoric  texts  a r e not  7  4.2 E f f e c t Of T o p i c On M e t a p h o r i c This between and  study proposes  students'  that  there w i l l  comprehension  the Unfamiliar  Texts  Metaphoric  be no  difference  of the F a m i l i a r text.  Metaphoric  S p e c i f i c hypotheses  text  a r e as  follows: (1) S t u d e n t s ' Familiar  free  Metaphoric  Metaphoric  text  the F a m i l i a r  Unfamiliar  free  Metaphoric  text  text  probed text  probed  from F a m i l i a r  the U n f a m i l i a r  and t h e i r  Unfamiliar  text recall  of Evoked  and t h e i r r e c a l l  idea  units  from  from t h e  from  Unfamiliar  recall  of F a c t u a l  and t h e i r r e c a l l  information  from  from  Unfamiliar  Metaphoric  recall  of I n c i d e n t a l  Metaphoric text  text  Factual  from  texts  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  of those  of t h e c o r r e c t  the F a m i l i a r from  different.  targets  in Familiar  Metaphoric  M e t a p h o r T a r g e t s from  from  targets  and t h e number  recognition  from  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  texts  (7) S t u d e n t s '  text  and t h e i r r e c a l l  Metaphoric  significantly  information  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  (6) The number o f I n f e r e n c e s  recognition  from  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  (5) S t u d e n t s ' information  information  from  of I n c i d e n t a l  text  recall  text  Metaphoric  Metaphoric  recall  text  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  (4) S t u d e n t s ' Familiar  recall  text  free  Metaphoric  Metaphoric  and t h e i r  Metaphoric  (3) S t u d e n t s ' Familiar  text  of T a r g e t  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  (2) S t u d e n t s ' from  recall  Metaphoric  the Unfamiliar  in Unfamiliar  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of text  Metaphoric  and t h e i r text  a r e not  8  5.  DEFINITONS OF TERMS The  following  d e f i n i t i o n s apply  t o terms used  in this  study: 5.1  Metaphor  Terminology.  M e t a p h o r - t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a word o r p h r a s e t h a t p r o p e r l y b e l o n g s t o one c o n t e x t t o a word o r p h r a s e i n a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t i n o r d e r t o e x p r e s s meaning t h r o u g h some r e a l or i m p l i e d s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e r e f e r e n t s i n v o l v e d ( A n d e r s o n , 1964; G a m b e l l & M c F e t r i d g e , 1981). F o r e x a m p l e , i n "The c h a i r m a n p l o w e d t h r o u g h t h e d i s c u s s i o n " ( B l a c k , 1 9 6 2 ) , t h e word " p l o w e d " i s used i n a n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t t o d e s c r i b e t h e chairman's " r u t h l e s s s u p p r e s s i o n o f i r r e l e v a n c e a n d summary d i s m i s s a l o f object ions"(p.30). Two d i s p a r a t e e n t i t i e s ( t h e c h a i r m a n ' s b e h a v i o u r a n d p l o w i n g ) have been c o m p a r e d on t h e b a s i s o f a s h a r e d a t t r i b u t e ( t h r u s t i n g down). For the purposes of the p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e t e r m metaphor h a s been used t o r e f e r t o b o t h s i m i l e s a n d m e t a p h o r s , f o r t h e two a p p e a r t o s h a r e a common f u n c t i o n a s w e l l a s a common p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s by w h i c h t h e y a r e comprehended ( K i n t s c h , 1974; a n d O r t o n y , I979d) V e h i c l e - t h e term b e i n g used m e t a p h o r i c a l l y i n a metaphor, f o r example " p l o w e d " i n " t h e c h a i r m a n p l o w e d t h r o u g h t h e d i s c u s s i o n . " . The t e r m i n o l o g y d e v e l o p e d by I . A. R i c h a r d s i n 1936 f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f m e t a p h o r s (Honeck & H o f f m a n , 1980) w i l l be u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y a s i t c o n t i n u e s t o be w i d e l y a c c e p t e d , and has been u s e d by many c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h e r s o f metaphor ( O r t o n y , R e y n o l d s & A r t e r , 1978). R i c h a r d s s t a t e d t h a t a metaphor c o n s i s t s o f two t e r m s a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between them. He c a l l e d t h e s u b j e c t term t h e t o p i c o r t e n o r , t h e term b e i n g used metaphorically t h e v e h i c l e , t h e common r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t o p i c and t h e v e h i c l e t h e ground , and t h e l i t e r a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e two t h e t e n s i o n (Honeck & H o f f m a n , 1980). P r i o r Knowledge - s u b j e c t s ' knowledge o f t h e t o p i c s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t e x t s a n d t h e v e h i c l e s o f t h e m e t a p h o r s employed i n t h e t e x t s a s m e a s u r e d by t h e P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t . A t t r i b u t e - d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e o r e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t y o f an object. F o r example, a d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e of a p o l a r bear i s i t s white coat. 5.2 E x p e r i m e n t a l T e x t  Terminology.  E x p o s i t o r y Text - a passage of i n f o r m a t i o n w r i t t e n t o i n s t r u c t a reader concerning a c e r t a i n object or idea. F a m i l i a r T e x t - t e x t about w h i c h s u b j e c t s have w r i t t e n f i v e o r more a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s of t h e t e x t ' s t o p i c on t h e P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t .  9  three Prior  U n f a m i l i a r T e x t - t e x t a b o u t w h i c h s u b j e c t s have w r i t t e n or fewer a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s of t h e t e x t ' s t o p i c on t h e Knowledge P r e t e s t .  M e t a p h o r i c T e x t s - t h e v e r s i o n s of t h e f a m i l i a r and t h e u n f a m i l i a r t e x t s which c o n t a i n t a r g e t metaphors; i n a c t u a l f a c t , the t e x t s t h e m s e l v e s a r e not m e t a p h o r i c a l but m e r e l y c o n t a i n metaphors. L i t e r a l T e x t s - t h e v e r s i o n s of t h e f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t e x t s which c o n t a i n the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t the  M e t a p h o r T a r g e t s - m e t a p h o r s embedded unfamiliar experimental texts.  i n the  the targets.  familiar  and  L i t e r a l E q u i v a l e n t T a r g e t s - the l i t e r a l p h r a s e s s u b s t i t u t e d i n p l a c e of t h e metaphor t a r g e t s i n t h e literal v e r s i o n o f b o t h t h e f a m i l i a r and t h e u n f a m i l i a r e x p e r i m e n t a l texts. 5.3  Comprehension  Terminology.  C o m p r e h e n s i o n - t h e p r o c e s s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g what has been read. T h i s p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s the r e a d e r to r e c o n s t r u c t the a u t h o r ' s i n t e n d e d message from t h e t e x t , and t o i n t e g r a t e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h h i s knowledge and c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s ( H a r r i s & Hodges, 1 9 8 1 ) . In t h i s s t u d y , c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f b o t h t a r g e t and i n c i d e n t a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d by means of O r a l F r e e R e c a l l s , P r o b e d R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s and M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor P r o b e s . R e c a l l - the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of & Hodges, 1981). a  p r o c e s s of b r i n g i n g back f r o m memory a p r i o r l e a r n i n g or e x p e r i e n c e by words ( H a r r i s  Oral Free R e c a l l t e x t j u s t read.•  - a subject's  unprompted o r a l r e t e l l i n g  of  I d e a U n i t - an i n d i v i d u a l i d e a w h i c h i s e x p r e s s e d i n a p h r a s e o r u n i t of l a n g u a g e w h i c h seems t o have a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , and w h i c h may be p r e d i c t e d from t h e l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e of the t e x t . A number of s t u d i e s have s u g g e s t e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n may be e n c o d e d and r e c a l l e d i n s u c h u n i t s ( A n g l i n & M i l l e r , 1968; F o d o r & B e v e r , 1965; N. J o h n s o n , 1 9 7 0 ) . T e x t Base T e m p l a t e - t h e l i s t of i d e a u n i t s d e r i v e d f r o m a t e x t u s i n g t h e m e t h o d o l o g y employed by N. J o h n s o n (1970) and Meyer and M c C o n k i e (1973) i n w h i c h a t e x t i s s u b j e c t i v e l y a n a l y z e d i n t o what seem t o be t h e i n d i v i d u a l i d e a s of t h e t e x t . T e x t Base P r o t o c o l s - t h e l i s t o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n of a s u b j e c t ' s o r a l f r e e Target  Recall  - subjects'  idea u n i t s d e r i v e d r e c a l l of a t e x t .  oral free  recall  of  idea  from  units  a  10  c o n t a i n i n g t h e t a r g e t s , t h a t i s , t h e metaphors or t h e i r l i t e r a l equivalent statements. S u b j e c t s ' r e c a l l had t o be an e x a c t r e s t a t e m e n t o r s e m a n t i c a l l y e n t a i l e d ( a d a p t e d from Drum, 1978). I n c i d e n t a l R e c a l l - s u b j e c t s ' o r a l f r e e r e c a l l of idea u n i t s other than the t a r g e t idea u n i t s . The u n i t s must be e x a c t r e s t a t e m e n t s , o r may i n c l u d e t e x t s p e c i f i c e l e m e n t s p u t t o g e t h e r i n new ways, o r a d d i t i o n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a r e s e m a n t i c a l l y e n t a i l e d by t h e t e x t ( a d a p t e d f r o m Drum, 1978). Evoked R e c a l l - s u b j e c t s ' o r a l f r e e r e c a l l of idea u n i t s which i n c l u d e elements of the t e x t which a r e e i t h e r i n a p p r o p r i a t e recombinations, or a d d i t i o n s of information e x t e r n a l t o t h e t e x t , o r g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s t h a t do n o t c o n v e y any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n ( a d a p t e d f r o m Drum, 1978). Probed R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s - q u e s t i o n s asked a f t e r the o r a l free r e c a l l task i n order t o i d e n t i f y a d d i t i o n a l information d e r i v e d f r o m t h e t e x t w h i c h t h e r e a d e r may have s t o r e d i n memory ( J o h n s o n , 1983). F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s - q u e s t i o n s the f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h e t a r g e t s experimental texts.  w h i c h f o c u s on embedded i n t h e  I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s - q u e s t i o n s w h i c h f o c u s on t h e f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l i n w h i c h t h e t a r g e t s a r e embedded. I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n s - q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e s u b j e c t s t o draw i n f e r e n c e s from t h e f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n presented i n the t a r g e t s . M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probe - the s h o r t w r i t t e n m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g t e s t d e s i g n e d as a s u p p l e m e n t a r y measure o f s u b j e c t s ' c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e t a r g e t metaphors. 6.  ASSUMPTIONS' Two a s s u m p t i o n s have been made b a s e d on t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f  the  study.  First,  and  difficulty  instructional readability a close  the experimental  to those e x p o s i t o r y purposes  texts  employed f o r  i n the classroom.  Second, t h e  measures used  approximation  t e x t s are s i m i l a r i n nature  to assess the experimental  of the degree of d i f f i c u l t y  texts  give  of the t e x t s .  11  7.  DELIMITATION OF The  study  population an  urban  results those  of  was  a limited  sample of  s e v e n c h i l d r e n from two  district.  t o be  which  STUDY  conducted with  grade  school are  THE  Thus c a r e  generalized  should  to other  adjacent  schools  be  i f the  taken  populations,  i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n whose n a t i v e  a  language  in  especially i s not  English. Although materials, eight  the  the  study  employed  language  samples a r e  " t a r g e t s " have been embedded  word t e x t .  Thus c o n c l u s i o n s  s a m p l e s employed may  not  t o b r o a d e r , more n a t u r a l As is  the  modes  possible With  i n each approximately  400  the  generalize easily s a m p l e s of  effects  regard  chosen  the  be  texts  different  n a r r a t i v e ) , i t may  in  not  be  c h o s e n mode.  t a r g e t s t h e m s e l v e s , the  ( B i l l o w , 1975).  to g e n e r a l i z e the  samples  experimental  of metaphor may  metaphor  language  beyond t h e s e  f o r the  r e s p o n s e of c h i l d r e n o n l y type  specific  language.  f i n d i n g s beyond the  t o the  educational in that  ( f o r example, argument and  "similarity"  possible  the  to g e n e r a l i z e  investigated the  and  from  somewhat c o n t r i v e d  drawn on  mode of d i s c o u r s e  expository,  other  of  texts derived  to w r i t t e n Thus i t may  f i n d i n g s to other  forms of  study  metaphors not  be  metaphor.  12  II. Two  major  REVIEW OF  b o d i e s of l i t e r a t u r e  s t u d y w i l l be  reviewed:  metaphor,  and  second, research  abilities  t o use metaphor  comprehension. criticisms  The  first,  notion  relevant  literature literature  former  expository  text,  studies  p r o d u c e metaphor reading  research  but  have  theories  of  children's and one  of the  i s that  of t h i s  on c h i l d r e n ' s  language  an  major  adequate  is lacking.  study i s to comprehension  of  examining the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to  a l s o been  of t h e l i t e r a t u r e  children  on  o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a metaphor  of metaphor  present  on m a j o r  i s warranted because  t o the second, a l t h o u g h the purpose  examine t h e e f f e c t s  to the  i n language p r o d u c t i o n  of much o f t h e metaphor  theoretical As  LITERATURE  seem t o be a b l e  r e v i e w e d b e c a u s e an  revealed  initial  an a p p a r e n t p a r a d o x :  t o p r o d u c e metaphor  a r e u n a b l e t o comprehend metaphor  that  a t an e a r l y  u n t i l close  to  an e x p l o s i o n  of  age,  adolescence. 1.  THEORIES OF Since  figurative  the  been  1970's t h e r e  have  role  acknowledged  realized  metaphor  plays  i n l a n g u a g e and  thinking  t h a n had  (Honeck,  (1980)  describes  it  caused  in part  a  by  Johnson  t h e change  & Malgady,  tradition  communicative  performance.  of emphasis  o f metaphor  w h i c h have  and  previously 1980). suggests that  within  from l i n g u i s t i c competence  theories  in  a f a r more  " f l u r r y o f a c t i v i t y " and  psychological  T h r e e major  1980;  interest  philosophers  that  Honeck was  has been  l a n g u a g e as e d u c a t o r s , l i n g u i s t s ,  psychologists significant  METAPHOR  the  to  been  proposed  13  over  the  centuries  metaphor and 1982)—the  thought  also  disciplines  1.1  The  i n language  the  ranging  (Arter,  of m e t a p h o r .  exactly  for  either  coining  the  of  of  theory  a term  of  that  f o c u s of  reasons:  f o r a new  i s thus  cognitive The  phrase  lexical  concept),  seen as  Substitution Miller  stylistic  r e a s o n s , and  carry  an  (p.174). the  states  argument by Verbrugge  that  incapable  of  the  to  claims  of  literary  semantic  text)  its  of  preference  use  No  f o r a number  of  upon t h e  three First,  metaphor  is, a  of  for  "  e m o t i o n s or  to  overemphasis"  major  inadequacies  Verbrugge  t r e a t s metaphor as  i t "really"  (for  1962).  such metaphors a r e  p r e c i s i o n ; that  1978)  example,  (Black,  d i s t o r t i o n and  view  (for  that  function.  the  to play  metaphor.  a m e t a p h o r c a n n o t mean what  phrase  to communication. to  view  is a direct  stylistic a  (1980) d i s c u s s e s  Substitution  traditional  been c r i t i c i z e d  that  way  means of  v i e w of  i s the  necessity  (1976) i s c r i t i c a l  in a misleading  Substitution  different  for a l i t e r a l  or  important  t h e o r y has  reasons.  used  the  metaphor,  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r ,  s i g n i f i c a n c e i s attached  often  the  psychology  metaphor  example, o r n a m e n t a l e m b e l l i s h m e n t Metaphor  t h e o r y , and  c h a n g i n g view of  a metaphor  same meaning  two  Readance,  Theory  a non-literal  the  Comparison  of  1976).  It asserts  substitution  function  (Baldwin, Luce &  from e d u c a t i o n a l  Substitution  has  theory,  n a t u r e and  l a n g u a g e and  Substitution  The  the  t h e o r y - - i l l u s t r a t e the  reflect  criticism  explain  Substitution  Interaction and  to  sentence  says.  of  (1980) a  form  containing  Second,  Verbrugge  14  (1980) n o t e s t h a t restraint  on t h e c o n t e n t  t o be u n d e r s t o o d , a high  the S u b s t i t u t i o n  of a metaphor; t h a t  the s u b s t i t u t e d  frequency associate  Verbrugge  (1980) m a i n t a i n s  proposing  only  i s , f o r a metaphor  of the s u r r o u n d i n g c o n t e x t . that  the S u b s t i t u t i o n  seriously underrates  a metaphor may s e r v e .  the degree of  o r i n t r u d i n g word must  two u s e s f o r metaphor  communication,  proposed  view u n d e r r a t e s  Third,  view, i n  f o r the purposes of t h e range o f f u n c t i o n s  The C o m p a r i s o n  t o overcome t h e s e  elicit  theory  which  o f metaphor was  l i m i t a t i o n s (Black,  1979).  1.2 C o m p a r i s o n T h e o r i e s Of M e t a p h o r . The  C o m p a r i s o n view o f metaphor  case of the S u b s t i t u t i o n Substitution t o metaphor that  of  (Johnson,  a metaphor  1980).  (Black,  1980).  comparison  1962).  i s equivalent  common t o b o t h t h e t o p i c  "The  1979) a n d , l i k e t h e  The C o m p a r i s o n  i s an i m p l i c i t  simile  (Verbrugge,  (Black,  v i e w , does n o t a t t r i b u t e any c o g n i t i v e  a metaphor  elliptical  view  i s regarded as a s p e c i a l  and the v e h i c l e  Black  theorists  (Ortony,  They a s s e r t  to a l i t e r a l  (1962) p r o v i d e s  o f two d i s p a r a t e  b e h a v i o u r ) and the v e h i c l e attribute  objects—the  ( t h r u s t i n g down) t o d e s c r i b e  suppression  of i r r e l e v a n c e  believe  1980a), o r an t h e meaning of p r o p e r t i e s  o f t h e metaphor the f o l l o w i n g  topic  (.plowing)—on  that  assertion  c h a i r m a n plowed t h r o u g h t h e d i s c u s s i o n , "  comparison  significance  which  example:  involves the  (the chairman's  the basis  of a shared  the chairman's  a n d summary d i s m i s s a l  "ruthless  of objections"  (p.30). The  earliest  was A r i s t o t l e .  proponent  of a Comparison  theory  One o f h i s major c o n t r i b u t i o n s  o f metaphor  was h i s b e l i e f  1 5  that  metaphor  i s constructed  on t h e p r i n c i p l e s  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r ,  1978).  (1897-1964), b e l i e v e d  metaphor  that  A later  major c o n t r i b u t i o n s  a crucial  vehicle  important  d i f f e r e n c e between  metaphors. suggested in  that  language  were h i s a s s e r t i o n s  what he t e r m e d  i s an e s s e n t i a l  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r ,  Barlow, F i n e linguistic  and P o l l i o  device  conjunction  transporter More  w h i c h makes an e x p l i c i t  some common, t h o u g h o f t e n  highly  variety have  of v a l u a b l e  of m e t a p h o r .  Verbrugge  1976;  and Matthews,  common  features  "information  Campbell  and P o l l i o ,  metaphor  i s "a  implicit ideas  that  feature"  involved  (Leech,  share  (p.37).  which  i n t h e comprehension  three  major  1969; M a l g a d y  types of & Johnson,  1971) w h i c h p r o p o s e m e c h a n i s m s f o r d e t e c t i n g  between  processing  p a i r s o f terms or c o n c e p t s ; t h e models"  " p r o p o s i t i o n a l models"  Miller,  current  has e n g e n d e r e d a wide  (1980) p r e s e n t s  a process of matching p r o p e r t i e s the  o f meaning  and l i n g u i s t i c models  the process  models: t h e " f e a t u r a l models"  or  imaginative  psychological  sought t o e x p l a i n  that  two i d e a s ;  The C o m p a r i s o n view o f metaphor  and " f r o z e n "  include  oxymoron,  (1977) who a s s e r t  o r c o m p a r i s o n between  i s an  by E m b l e r , who i n 1966  1978).  a s an i m p l i c i t  metaphor i s  there  "novel"  p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e C o m p a r i s o n v i e w o f metaphor (1975) who s e e s metaphor  of  believed.  that  and t h a t  t h e s i s was e x p a n d e d  metaphor  component  as A r i s t o t l e  f o r language change,  Breal's  proponent, Breal  i s a basic  l a n g u a g e u s e and n o t a mere ornament Breal's  of analogy  1979) w h i c h t r e a t  (Sternberg,  1977) w h i c h  i n t h e compared  (Kintsch, metaphor  1974; Mack,  describe  domains; and 1975; and  as a condensed a s s e r t i o n , and  16  require was  the  reconstruction  truncated The  the  way  the  t o the  C o m p a r i s o n v i e w has  researchers received view  on  of  underlying  surface  Black  that  (1962) s t a t e s  that  believes  for  a  formal  and  achievements.  S i m i l a r l y , Johnson  any  two  s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s ,  can  never e x p l a i n  comparison,  things  are  metaphor.  Still  Verbrugge  (1980).  a  topic  what  Ortony that  version  of  they are  the  Ortony  the  entity,  but  entertained  i s not  a  distinctive  for t h i s the  the  (p.37).  substitute capacities  (1980) a s s e r t s  that  since  Comparison  important argument  view  about i s given  Comparison approach  some o f  view.  to  by fails  understand  t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s by  i n the  face  of  a very  Ortony  proposes a  naive  Modified  relationship  comparisons. metaphor a s  intended  t o be  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that  (1980b) n o t e s ,  Comparison  " l e a d a comprehender  only  (1980a) d e f i n e s  incompatibility)  has  vacuity"  w h i c h s u g g e s t s a more c a u t i o u s  anomalous u t t e r a n c e ,  it  of  (p.100).  valid  Comparison  theory  i t s own  that  fashion"  between m e t a p h o r s and  has  states  (1980a) r e p l i e s t o  stating  that  support  f o r metaphors t h a t  i n a novel  Comparison  has  statement  i s i n t e r e s t i n g and  further He  but  majority  the  b o r d e r s on  Black  to account  a metaphorical  the  Nonetheless,  " s u f f e r s from a vagueness t h a t  which  structure.  been a d o p t e d by  i n v e s t i g a t i n g metaphor.  criticism.  proposition  however, t h a t  more a g e n e r a l i n t h o u g h t , and  s u c h by  the  i s , in p r i n c i p l e ,  "any  tension  contextually a speaker (or  eliminable"  a metaphor  cognitive need not  i s not  or  writer,  conceptual  (p.352). just a  linguistic  e n t i t y which c o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y be  Ortony  be  r e a l i z e d in  17  language.  " I t i s not  m e t a p h o r s , but With the  process,  than  Reynolds & A r t e r ,  and  (Ortony,  the  i s a component end  1978).  metaphor  anomaly, r e c o g n i t i o n statement,  them"  themselves that 1979c,  to comprehending metaphor, Ortony  comparisons  rather  interpreting  expressions  p a r t i c u l a r u s e s of  regard  making of  linguistic  Ortony  involves that  identification  v e h i c l e , and  r e s u l t of  finally,  the  of  the  the  anomaly  states  process  of  p.9). that  comprehension  (1979c) b e l i e v e s  recognition  a  (Ortony, that  contextual  is a nonliteral  similarity  of m a t c h i n g a t t r i b u t e s from t h e the  identification  of  are  the  topic  salient  attributes. With  regard  to the  r o l e of  metaphor  (1975) a r g u e s t h a t  metaphor  stylistic  device.  Ortony maintains  essential  ingredient  of  great  educational  important first,  the  means o f for  functions  the  communication,  value.  Ortony  o f metaphor  expressing new  things  scientific  r e a d y made l i t e r a l  information  equivalents  are  a  support  are  not  strength,  is  in cases  this claim.  not  literal  " conveys a host  of  a  expressible;  n e c e s s a r i l y come  m e t a p h o r s can  dived  The  t h a t metaphors are  The  second,  transfer  f o r w h i c h e i t h e r no  "he  be  three  l a n g u a g e t o e x p r e s s them. that  an  c o n s e q u e n t l y can  literally  c o n c e p t i o n s do  f o r example,  f e a r l e s s warrior  bravery,  metaphor  and  Ortony  literary  (1975) p r e s e n t s  a v a i l a b l e or a t t e m p t e d  t e d i o u s l y wordy;  like  to  that  Compactness t h e s i s , c l a i m s  "chunks" of  be  that  just a  I n e x p r e s s i b i l i t y t h e s i s , claims  example,  with  of  i s more t h a n  i n language,  literal  equivalents  i n t o the  large  would  i c y water  attributes including  fearlessness, aggressiveness  and  18  determination.  The t h i r d ,  the Vividness t h e s i s ,  metaphors a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y proximity  t o , and p a r a s i t i c  by  circumventing  of  ideas  detail  (emotive,  great  imagery  sensory,  likely  they  "because of t h e i r  of p e r c e i v e d  enable  experience;  the communication  and c o g n i t i v e ) w i t h  t o come a b o u t  (1975) c l a i m s  resulting  therefore  a r i c h n e s s of  i n t h e normal c o u r s e of  three  functions give  f o r two r e a s o n s .  f r o m metaphor c o m p r e h e n s i o n  a more p e r s o n a l  greater  supplement  and i n s i g h t f u l  learnability.  First,  the v i v i d  encourages understanding,  and  S e c o n d , metaphor c a n be u s e d t o  a l e a r n e r t o move  from t h e w e l l known ( t h e  o f t h e m e t a p h o r ) t o t h e unknown ( t h e t o p i c ) .  example,  metaphor  knowledge o r t o d e s c r i b e u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s b e c a u s e  metaphor a l l o w s vehicle  these  educational u t i l i t y  memorability,  allows  utilization  that  (p.50).  Ortony its  or imageable  discretization,  much l e s s  events"  vivid  claims  "The atom  a student  unknown t o p i c  i s a miniature  solar  system"  (Petrie,1979)  t o come t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  (atom) by a t t r i b u t i n g  known v e h i c l e ( t h e s o l a r  For  of t h e  to i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of the  system).  1.3 The I n t e r a c t i o n T h e o r y The  I n t e r a c t i o n theory  perceived  weaknesses of t h e Comparison  Verbrugge, I.  1980).  A. R i c h a r d s  metaphor essential  was d e v e l o p e d  The a p p r o a c h ,  i n 1936 ( B l a c k ,  i s not o n l y to certain  Interaction  important  first  i n response  theory  to the  ( S e a r l e , 1979;  p r o p o s e d by  1979), s e e k s t o d e m o n s t r a t e i n communication,  b u t may a l s o be  c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s (Johnson,  view a s s e r t s t h a t a l t h o u g h  that  1980).  m e t a p h o r s c a n be  The  19  substitutes between  p.923).  or  really  s t a t e m e n t s , and  ideas,  the  involve  two  i s new, Black  (Honeck,  subjects  and  can  comparisons  "psychologically  interesting  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r ,  r e l a t e the  i n s u c h a way  (1962) e x p l i c a t e s He  manner.  ("subsidiary  (Arter,  that  have s y s t e m s of  unusual connotations e s t a b l i s h e d  features it  that  of  p r i n c i p a l subject  normally  Thus t h e  developing Other (1975) who metaphor  into  two  new  the  the  like  a  meanings  the  personal  the  writer.  organizes about  (pp.44-45). a  schema  similarity for  are  two  view  and who  types a c c o r d i n g  include  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the  Wheelwright similarly  to  "diaphor"  Haynes  comparison (cited  analyzed  function:  in metaphor  "epiphor"  ( p r o d u c e s a new  meaning  juxtaposition). Ortony,  Reynolds & A r t e r  the  1980).  grammatically:  1978)  s i m i l a r i t y ) and  creates  framework or  the  and  statements  subject"  and  Interaction  interaction level;  Reynolds & A r t e r ,  implying  filter,  there  distinguishable  component  by  (Honeck,  by  s u p p r e s s e s and  subsidiary  organizational  maintains that  (expresses a by  to  p r o p o n e n t s of  not  and  Ortony,  apply  metaphor a c t s  w h i c h becomes an  level  i s , commonplace c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s ,  " s e l e c t s , emphasizes, the  in  "associated  attitudes,  metaphor  Richards  ("principal subject")  that  The  of  functions  implications," and  meaning  1976). ideas  a metaphor  topic  subject")  the  1978,  present  to produce a  more c l e a r l y  maintains Both the  thoughts  as  which t r a n s c e n d s both  1980).  following  be  more"  A g o o d metaphor can  concerning  vehicle  literal  objects  metaphors  that  for  (1978) a r g u e , however,  that  20  Interaction  metaphors c o u l d  and  that  suggest  the  (1975) t o d e s c r i b e level, real in  regard  warrior"  that  reader  the  swimmer  predicate the  the  will  take  more  only the  (e.g.,  comprehension  that  (p.274)--which  a l l the  of  replies  t o Haynes' c r i t i c i s m s , aspect  to  this  language comprehension  whole.  Ortony concludes  w h i c h a metaphor Certainly, experimental (Verbrugge,  the or  and  process  that  i s comprehended  that  I n t e r a c t i o n v i e w has theoretical  1980).  work as  peculiar  courage e t c . ) , In  that  and  contrast,  f e a t u r e s does o c c u r ,  what  of  "click  of  i s made"  "experimentally Ortony the  (1976)  Interactive  restricted  and  i t i s the  asserts  this  of m a k i n g  in general,  a  although  notes that not  like  a p p l i e d to a  swimmer.  comparison.  of c o m p r e h e n s i o n  Ortony contends that  be  the  example,  theory  "eureka"—the  formulating  For  i c y water  the comparison  the  interactive  known t o be  asserts  salient  after  i n v o l v e s the  aspects  of  Haynes  the  Comparison  reasonably  feeling  h y p o t h e s e s " b a s e d on  i s an  i n t o the  1975)  theory,  o f d i s c o v e r i n g what  resoluteness,  (Haynes,  occurs  Comparison  i s " (p.924).  them t o t h e  fertile  level  dived  strength,  i s the  result  1975), t h e  transference  important  the  r e f e r r e d t o by  metaphor  "He  e n t i r e s e t of  or  the  which c o u l d  I n t e r a c t i o n theory  predication is  be  by  i n s i g h t s p o s s i b l e at  (Ortony,  fearless warriors  diving  new  metaphor,  fearless  to  the  t o p i c of  to the  handled  "eureka" aspect  "...may r e a l l y  v e h i c l e or  be  to  inferences  metaphor. extends  t o c o g n i t i o n as  process  i s of  of  central  not  i n s p i r e d as  the  Comparison  a  comparison  by  concern. much v i e w has  done  21  2.  METAPHOR  IN CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE PRODUCTION AND  In t h e r e c e n t and  explosion  i t s use, educators,  linguists,  p s y c h o l o g i s t s have a s s e r t e d language and t h i n k i n g . to  be a p e r v a s i v e  Children's that  receptive, children seemed  aspect  i s , their  are able  metaphor  metaphor  until that  in oral  close  that  including  discourse  specifically,  lexical  knowledge  topic  ability  a g e , i t has  Recent  research  t o comprehend  supposed, and t h a t by a v a r i e t y  and l e n g t h ,  their  of f a c t o r s  development, g e n e r a l  of the v e h i c l e  While  they a r e unable t o  conventions, contextual type,  language, or  metaphor.  to adolescence.  i n comprehension i s a f f e c t e d  exposure t o l i t e r a r y  and w r i t t e n  a t an e a r l y  than h i t h e r t o  ability,  as p r o d u c t i v e ,  t o comprehend  children's  begins e a r l i e r  such as r e a d i n g  2.1  may be c a t e g o r i z e d  ability  acknowledged  language f u n c t i o n i n g .  t o p r o d u c e metaphor  s u g g e s t s , however,  success  i s now g e n e r a l l y  f r o m much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  comprehend  language  p h i l o s o p h e r s and  of n a t u r a l  u s e o f metaphor  that  in figurative  t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f metaphor i n  Metaphor  u s e o f metaphor  i s , their  of i n t e r e s t  COMPREHENSION  knowledge,  conditions and more  of a g i v e n  metaphor.  Production Studies  of c h i l d r e n ' s  examined b o t h o r a l and have compared comprehend Rosentiel  and w r i t t e n  t o p r o d u c e metaphor  language ( P o l l i o  use i n language p r o d u c t i o n  (Gardner, K i r c h e r ,  Winner  & G a r d n e r , 1976).  Pollio children's  ability  and P o l l i o ability  & Pollio,  1974)  with a b i l i t y to  & Perkins,  1974; W i n n e r ,  ~~  (1974) were c o n c e r n e d w i t h  t o use f i g u r a t i v e  have  determining  language i n o r a l and  22  written  contexts.  grades three,  f o u r and f i v e  In t h e C o m p o s i t i o n of  five  given  greater  One h u n d r e d and s e v e n t y - f o u r  task,  topics.  level  I t was f o u n d  sentences  than  task,  word a s p o s s i b l e , f o r f i v e  found that the  over  possible.  single  words  increased  over  more n o v e l taken  than  to provide that  successive frozen  course  grades,  figures.  (many o f w h i c h were  (double-function  that  c h i l d r e n are able  they  can e x p l a i n the exact  elements of a  than  (1960)). novel  successive  I t was  f i g u r e s , and grades.  with  In  three  a s many s i m i l a r i t i e s a s language  production  and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n u s e d The r e s e a r c h e r s  supplement  stated that,  the c o n c l u s i o n s  reached  (1960) who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s  metaphor  orally,  figurative  as a whole, the r e s u l t s  Asch and N e r l o v e  over  meanings of t h a t  t h e c h i l d r e n were p r e s e n t e d  I t was f o u n d  In  t h e c h i l d r e n w r o t e a s many  showed a marked d e c r e a s e  Comparisons task,  on one  successive grades.  t h a t c h i l d r e n p r o d u c e d more f r o z e n both  tasks.  and t h a t t h e  t e r m s u s e d by A s c h and N e r l o v e  word p a i r s a n d a s k e d  by  figures,  a s p o s s i b l e , u s i n g a s many d i f f e r e n t  double-function  three  that c h i l d r e n produced a  novel  o f usage d e c r e a s e d  the M u l t i p l e - s e n t e n c e s  t o complete  t h e c h i l d r e n wrote c o m p o s i t i o n s  number o f f r o z e n  absolute  were a s k e d  children in  t o understand  terms).  Pollio  t o use f i g u r a t i v e nature  and e x p l a i n  and P o l l i o  concluded  language w e l l  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  before linking  figure.  G a r d n e r , K i r c h e r , Winner and P e r k i n s  (1974) i n v e s t i g a t e d  t h e c a p a c i t i e s o f c h i l d r e n ( e i g h t y - f o u r a t e a c h o f f o u r age levels--7,  11, 14, and 19 y e a r s - - a n d  forty-seven  preschool  23  children)  to produce a p p r o p r i a t e  discriminate having four  them  links,"  and  among m e t a p h o r s o f v a r y i n g a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , (1)  orally  p r o d u c e an  endings to a s e r i e s  s t o r i e s presented increasing  "metaphorical  with  metaphor, which the "...increased acquaintance  of e i g h t e e n  orally.  age,  ending,  The  very  results  f o r an  cognitive sophistication, with  the  literary  medium, and  more  appropriate be  more  tendency,  attributed  a taste for materials  contrast,  however, c o n v e n t i o n a l  metaphors predominated  subjects'  oral  appropriate  productions,  produced  by  and  interesting"  s u b j e c t s o f any  suspected,  was  due  to  age  the  production  of  original  W i n n e r , R o s e n t i e l and of and  180  c h i l d r e n at  14 y e a r s )  language.  s i x age  Gardner  related  four  t o age:  levels  ( f o c u s on  incidental  on  the  appropriate  to complete  two  explication  task)  metaphors.  The  aspects  tasks  of  the  (a s e l e c t i o n  upon h e a r i n g  researchers  against (p.140).  terms).  simple  contended  8,  ability 10,  12  metaphorical  at  face v a l u e ) ,  terms), p r i m i t i v e  terms),  task,  7,  the  metaphorical  (accepted  ( i n a p p r o p r i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of the  6,  explain  of  the  the  endings"  ( m e d i a n s of  magical  of  This,  (1976) e x a m i n e d t h e  metonymic  aspects  in  (which) m i l i t a t e s  metaphorical  levels  In  m e t a p h o r s were  group.  t o p r o d u c e , comprehend and  They p o s t u l a t e d  comprehension  and  (p.140).  "...some f a c t o r ( s ) i n  developmental or e d u c a t i o n a l process  to  intimate  less  researchers  and  may  of  incomplete  which are  rarely  familiar  short  suggested  by  (2) c h o o s e one  indicated a  towards p r e f e r e n c e researchers  and  to  and  genuine  Subjects and  were a s k e d  a production  sentences that  (focus  the  or  containing results  of  both  24  tasks,  i n conjunction with  supported  the r e s u l t s  the hypothesized  sequence of stages  of metaphor c o m p r e h e n s i o n .  The o r d e r  spontaneous p r o d u c t i o n of metaphor, and  finally  by t h e a b i l i t y  metaphor w h i c h  of p r i o r  research,  i n the development  of a c q u i s i t i o n i s :  f o l l o w e d by c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,  to e x p l a i n the r a t i o n a l e  requires a metalinguistic  of a  awareness t h a t  only  emerges i n p r e a d o l e s c e n c e . Ortony, the  Reynolds and A r t e r  results  cannot  do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  properly interpret  selection  task  metaphors.  consistent with  however, t h a t  t h a t younger  They n o t e  of the t e x t s they  r e a d e r s a r e exposed "magical  consistent select  worlds"  1980a; O r t o n y , The  b i a s i n f a v o u r of  spontaneously Rosentiel  Kircher,  than  experience  of these  i n c r e a s e s appear  that c h i l d r e n can  oral  (Winner,  p r o d u c t i o n s and  increase with maturity  1974; P o l l i o  to p a r a l l e l  (Ortony,  1978).  1976), a n d t h a t t h e i r  & Perkins,  stories  i t w o u l d be  o f a g i v e n metaphor  p r o d u c e m e t a p h o r s by p r e s c h o o l age  Winner  conventions.  Thus  young  f o r young c h i l d r e n t o  s t u d i e s suggest  f o r n o v e l metaphors  sophistication  grow o l d e r , t h e  Specifically,  are older readers.  interpretation  & Gardner,  preference  changes.  children  t o a much h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f f a i r y  Reynolds & A r t e r ,  results  i n the  the kinds of s t o r i e s  encounter  w i t h much o f t h e i r  a magical  children  that  f o r i t i s common knowledge t h a t a s r e a d e r s  nature  and  establish  t h e r e may have been a r e s p o n s e  interpretations read,  (1978) s u g g e s t ,  their  & Pollio,  (Gardner,  1974).  growing c o g n i t i v e  a n d knowledge o f t h e w o r l d  and o f  literary  I n c o n t r a s t , however, c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t t e n  These  25  productions  o f metaphor  moreover, the m a j o r i t y conventional Pollio 2.2  seem t o d e c r e a s e  in quantity  of metaphors produced a r e f r o z e n or  f i g u r e s ( G a r d n e r , K i r c h e r , Winner  & Pollio,  & Perkins,  1974;  1974).  Comprehension In  research  s t u d i e s examining c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o  comprehend m e t a p h o r , m e t a p h o r s have been p r e s e n t e d minimal contexts, and  sentences,  that  significant Ortony,  effect  Schallert,  general,  figurative  is.literal  processing  Length of context upon r e a d e r s '  language  longer  t o be u n d e r s t o o d but that  than  of metaphor. that, in  i n much t h e same way  of  context.  metaphorical  c o n d i t i o n , fewer can generate only specific  Further  those  requiring  They  suggest  that,  support  literal  the d i f f e r e n c e disappeared  context  insufficiently  within  t o have a  under c o n d i t i o n s of m i n i m a l c o n t e x t u a l  l e n g t h was i n c r e a s e d .  Osgood  found  (1978) a s s e r t  targets requiring a  context  effective.  i s embedded  has been  i s processed  phrases  l a n g u a g e , and what d e t e r m i n e s t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f  interpretations,  reader  that  comprehension  R e y n o l d s and A n t o s  O r t o n y e_t a l . f o u n d t h a t  took  contexts,  i s not n o n l i t e r a l n e s s but r e l a t e d n e s s  interpretation  either in  i s a s s i n g l e words o r i n s h o r t  or i n longer  passages or t e x t s .  as  w i t h age;  when  i n the short  schemata c a n be a c t i v a t e d so t h a t a vague e x p e c t a t i o n s  which a r e  for a hypothesis/test  support  for this  argument  process  t o be  i s o f f e r e d by  (1980) who s t a t e s t h a t young c h i l d r e n ' s i n a b i l i t y t o  comprehend b r i e f  metaphorical  terms of " i n s u f f i c i e n t  s e n t e n c e s may be e x p l a i n e d i n  e l a b o r a t i o n of the semantic  f e a t u r e s of  26  words and length,  phrases"  studies  as e i t h e r 2.2.1  Short Context  of the  figurative  Nerlove  first  use  of c o n t e x t  have been c a t e g o r i z e d  Context.  comprehension  understanding  refer  both  age  from  regarding terms.  with c h i l d r e n function  to the p h y s i c a l  warm and  t h r e e to twelve  results  terms f i r s t .  psychological  sense,  connection  The  sweet.  The  of  great d i f f i c u l t y meanings.  then  spontaneously  quite  terms,  c a p a b l e of  but  once t h e i r  realizing  A major c r i t i c i s m  The  realized  older  relations  attention  them a n d  of t h i s  double-  study  of  They c o u l d n o t  o f t h e d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n t e r m s was as a r u l e .  course,  was  The  of the  see  the  dual  last,  children  and  i n the  double-  focused, they  explaining i s that  the  in formulating a  m e a n i n g s o f a word.  not aware o f t h e  ranging  interviewed  the a p p l i c a t i o n  property  function  children,  the o b j e c t r e f e r e n c e ; that  between  s t u d y were o f t e n  of p e o p l e , f o r  a c q u i r e d the  relation  not  that  of  developmental  then  understood  several  of  number of d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n  children  with the p h y s i c a l  and  the development  individually  regular  independent  t h e y had  the  Asch  t h e o b j e c t r e f e r e n c e of t h e  a l t h o u g h the c h i l d r e n  terms t o p e r s o n s ,  a  by  properties  properties  y e a r s , were  indicated  mastering  a study  in tracing  t h e meaning o f a l i m i t e d  The  was  development  of d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms;  to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  example, h a r d , c r o o k e d ,  is,  or Long  review  were i n t e r e s t e d  and  terms w h i c h  o b j e c t s , and  in  literature  of the e f f e c t  s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s of the  language  (1960) who  children's is,  in this  In view  Short Context C o n d i t i o n One  of  (p. 232).  were  them.  although Asch  and  27  Nerlove claim could  t h e y were i n v e s t i g a t i n g  be a r g u e d  investigation (Pollio,  that  t h e y were n o t , s i n c e  c o u l d a l l be c l a s s i f i e d  Barlow,  Fine & P o l l i o ,  learned as separate l e x i c a l expect of  the psychological  course.  Ortony  (1980a) m a i n t a i n s t h a t  understand ability in  t o understand  the task used. ability  Asch  accepted  of t h e i r  (1974),  spontaneously, metaphorical  be  found  Barlow,  might  between t h e a b i l i t y  (p.353), and a s s e r t s  than  results  of c h i l d r e n t o  i t does about  A second  were n o t a s k e d  to explain  problem  lies  their  involved  i n the nature of  t o demonstrate  them.  development  that  Fine & P o l l i o ,  o f t h e younger c h i l d r e n  Gardner  determine  ability  (Pollio,  interpretations  Accordingly,  their  o r comprehend t h e d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n t e r m s  c o n c e r n i n g language  explication inability  and N e r l o v e ' s  as a matter  c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n  the a b i l i t y  uses.  one would  of t h e n a t u r e and  traits"  of language  literal  later,  1978).  understanding  The c h i l d r e n  t o produce  independent  uses  metaphors  I f t h e t e r m s were  the r e s u l t s  s a y s no more a b o u t  nonliteral  interpreting  1977).  & Arter,  o f human p e r s o n a l i t y  the study  as "frozen"  meaning t o d e v e l o p  t e r m s o f an " i m p o v e r i s h e d  that  t h e terms s e l e c t e d f o r  i t e m s by t h e c h i l d r e n ,  (Ortony, Reynolds  subtleties  metaphorical thinking, i t  have been  I t i s widely use p r e c e d e s  1977),  thus the  t o a n a l y z e and e x p l a i n  their  expected.  who h a d n o t e d  the apparent  o f young c h i l d r e n  contradiction  t o use f i g u r a t i v e  language  and r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s which a s s e r t e d t h a t  speech  emerges o n l y a t a l a t e r  whether t h e a b i l i t y  age, sought t o  t o make m e t a p h o r i c a l l i n k s c o u l d  i n preschool children.  Gardner  proposed  that the  28  ability  to p r o j e c t  whose l i t e r a l other  of  employed"  capacity.  (1960) d o u b l e  h u n d r e d and  7,  11.5,  is,  and  for  one  19  of  while  and  of  The was  a  children  terms  in four  adjectives  age  was  domain  involved  study demonstrated  decrease  i n the  that  f o r the  c o n t e n t s of  experience.  Gardner c o n c l u d e d  metaphorical  thought  w h i c h may  the that  have d e v e l o p e d  problem w i t h the  study  two  as  the  domains;  a choice  of  lines,  a block  of  for  metal  1977).  although  there  e r r o r s made w i t h  oldest  groups  preschool well  as  the  children adults their  the  of  by  r e s p o n s e between o n l y  & Pollio,  That  metaphors l a y w i t h i n basic the  i s that  have u n d u l y a f f e c t e d t h e  Barlow, Fine  3.5,  domains.  thin  that  number of  associations  the  had  cold-warm.  the  make m e t a p h o r i c a l  sparse  and  hard-soft,  five  involved  the  could  forced-choice  demonstration  matched by  and  tactile  not  (mean ages  f r o m the  nonexistent—the  a  groups  t o be  d i f f e r e n c e s were a l m o s t  One  or  l i g h t - d a r k ) , Gardner  lines,  age--except  provided  a  ( f o r example,  e l e m e n t s drawn  wood f o r  significant  could,  modality  s i m i l a r to Asch  dense t h i c k  f i n d i n g s of  increasing  considered  v i s u a l - a b s t r a c t domain  loud-quiet, a block  be  h a p p y - s a d , and  polar  the  configurations  adjectives  (sensory  Using, a d j e c t i v e s ,  function  w i t h a p a i r of  example,  a domain  'polar'  y e a r s ) match terms t o c r o s s - m o d a l  e a c h p a i r of  subjects  within  (p.85) c o u l d  warm-cold, l o u d - q u i e t , one  antonymous o r  s y s t e m ) i s known o n t o a domain where t h e y a r e  metaphorical  Nerlove's  of  denotation  coherent  ordinarily  "sets  f o u r t h year of  the  two  experiment  possible  subjects'  Second,  the  components  life.  involved  elements,  responses  distinction  (Pollio, of  a  29  "right"  or  "wrong" m e t a p h o r i c a l m a t c h i n g may  appropriate  with  'wrong' match  s u c h a r a n g e of  f o r an  adult  may  (Pollio  e t §_1. , 1977;  p. 165).  Nerlove  (i960)  the  study,  t e r m s w h i c h may is,  capacity,  and  a possible  of  Finally,  Piagetian  in  individual interviews.  1978;  tasks  with  fifty The  classifications  that  b a s e d on  tell  the  between  class  meaning of  ability  twelve  similarity The  young as  five  his  investigation  The  of  t o make The  c h i l d r e n were  sentences  containing  involved  objects  metaphors used, a l l e n t a i l e d o b j e c t s  as  to t h i r t e e n ,  achievement  inclusion.  i s , ones w h i c h  qualities.  five  measured  the  s h a r e d a t t r i b u t e , f o r example,  children  associations  and  or more d i s p a r a t e  concrete  There  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between  basis  relatively  items.  was  of  The  frozen  metaphorical  p h a s e of  comparison a  and  a l . , 1977).  boys, aged  metaphors, that  of  Asch  child"  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  first  i s , the  a  involved  word  et  be  for a  i n the  vocabulary  similarity  two  been  c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t as  metaphor comprehension  operations,  to  as  Pollio  t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e  required  as  confounding  metaphor and  two  concrete  ' r i g h t ' match  response to p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d  by  similarity  a  (1975) i n v e s t i g a t e d the  comprehension  sought  be  have  "What may  metaphors themselves  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , Billow  subjects.  have been l e a r n e d  therefore,  not  or  "Hair  the  ideas is  on  the  spaghetti."  with tangible  or  f i n d i n g s demonstrated  y e a r s were a b l e , t o  interpret  that  the  metaphors c o r r e c t l y .  s e c o n d phase o f  whether t h e r e  was  the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n sought  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between  the  to  determine  comprehension  of  30  proportional formal  m e t a p h o r s and  operational  classifications required  to  proportional  the  example,  "three  stated  form the  Billow task  i n "my  proportional  previous results  classificatory  child's  life  along  existing involved" could  coloured  well  uncontrolled  be  the  by  knowledge d e f i c i t  as  an  ability  a  to no  implied  Billow  t o age.  study  but  as  well  i n terms of  proverbs  that  r e l a t e d to  the  were with  the  i s a type  Billow  of  maturing  concluded  exist  earlier  "that in a  (p.420). i s that  influential  to the  reasoning  interpret  stated  fourth  (p.415).  finding consistent  i s strongly  as  the  combinatorial  virtually  1980(a), p.354). explained  four  core",  age,  knowledge p e r t a i n i n g  probably  i n which  any  than h i t h e r t o supposed"  (Ortony,  circles.  those  f o r m s of metaphor c o m p r e h e n s i o n  an  a  apple without  that  which  were  containing  to complete  complemented  A major p r o b l e m w i t h t h i s "vary  sentences  metaphor c o m p r e h e n s i o n  behaviour as  subjects  proportionally.  In c o n c l u s i o n ,  cognitive operations  t o make  but  r e s u l t s on  y e a r s of  i n d i c a t e d that  The  of  directly,  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h an  eleven  ability  (head:apple):(brain:core)"  better  research.  rudimentary  i s an  m e t a p h o r s , and  before  four  achievement  m e t a p h o r s as  compared, not  proportion:  were h i g h l y  twelve  using  e l e m e n t s must be  found t h a t  solved  task  head  i s , the  p r o v e r b s , and  proportional  more e l e m e n t s a r e  For  to  meaning of  reasoning  Billow c l a s s i f i e d  that  the  proportionality.  m e t a p h o r s and  combinatorial  or  reasoning,  b a s e d on  tell  p r o v e r b s and  the  metaphors  dimension,  c o n c e p t s and Consequently, i n t e r m s of  a  used  namely,  relationships the  results  world  cognitive sophistication.  31  Second, B i l l o w asked h i s s u b j e c t s task,  e x p l i c a t i o n , in order  is  widely  be  age  recognized  and  itself  stage  (Ortony,  analysis focuses they  map  object) the  on  (1977) p r o p o s e d and  on  the  two  domain  tasks.  t o map  knees and  local  features  (eyes  and  underlying to preserve  first,  an  s i x body p a r t s  required  was  individual  situation:  t r e e ) had  testing  (head,  the  Gentner a s s e r t e d  (e.g.,  t h a t her  of  semantic  ability  i s present  concluded  that  preschool  children.  at  the  with  outset  the of  (a  required  arms,  t o map  two  face  In  in  range o b j e c t it  an  (e.g., be?"  i n d i c a t e d that  basic  children,  metaphorical  hypothesis  that  language use.  such  Thus  i s well-developed  a  parts  both tasks,  in preschool  basic analogical a b i l i t y  concrete  second,  p o s i t i o n t h a t young c h i l d r e n l a c k compatible  analogy,  The  weaken t h e  are  i s well developed  an  trees.  ability  and  range  h e a d ) , where w o u l d which  and  r e l a t i o n s as  a l l subjects  "If this  results,  on  m e t a p h o r and  analogical  ability,  of m e t a p h o r i c a l  shoulders,  subjects  asked o r a l l y  a domain p a r t  Billow's  i s based  mouth) o n t o p i c t u r e s of m o u n t a i n s .  following question  to  comprehension  o r i e n t a t i o n task,  f e e t ) o n t o p i c t u r e s of  task,  likely  e x a m i n e d an a l t e r n a t i v e  (a human body) t o t h e  The  as  It  care.  approach, which  subjects' a b i l i t i e s  subjects  stomach,  Her  are  Thus,  c h i l d r e n ' s development  t h e mapping p r o c e s s  from  comprehension.  language  1978).  i n t e r p r e t e d with  abilities.  of  is figurative  Reynolds & A r t e r ,  approach to a s s e s s i n g analogical  t o measure t h e i r  that m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s  r e l a t e d as  f i n d i n g s must be Gentner  to perform a m e t a l i n g u i s t i c  she in  the  32  While  t h e s t u d y h a s been c i t e d  many o f t h e s t a n d a r d example, c o n t r o l s  pitfalls  little  of research  f o r vocabulary  knowledge, a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g  as exemplary in this  experience,  i t i s not obvious t h a t  asserted  that  the d i s t i n c t i o n  ability Thus  Gentner  i t c a n be s a i d t h a t  analogical Arlin strategies  ability  that  she was i n v e s t i g a t i n g an  i n regard  to i t s constituent  (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r ,  1978).  (1978) i n v e s t i g a t e d two i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n her e x p l o r a t i o n  o f metaphor a n d t h o u g h t w i t h one  hundred and f o r t y - t w o  children  individual  of c o g n i t i v e developmental  assessment  nine Piagetian  tasks,  i n g r a d e s one t o s e v e n .  training).  reading  The m e t a p h o r s employed were a l l t a k e n  series currently  Province  of B r i t i s h  comprehension intervention concluded  period  level  using  operational  from t h e f o u r  major  Students'  in i n d i v i d u a l interviews  operational  level  level  similarity basal  i n u s e f o r g r a d e s one t o t h r e e  were measured b e f o r e  t o one  comprehension  (representational,  C o l u m b i a , Canada.  abilities  that  their  t r a i n i n g a n d d i r e c t metaphor  proportional)  After  t h e s t u d e n t s were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d  two i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t s w i t h i n  (classification  and  processing.  t h e s t u d y was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f  only  component  (1977)  between metaphor a n d a n a l o g y i s  common t o b o t h a n a l o g i c a l and m e t a p h o r i c a l  metaphorical  of  (Ortony,  G e n t n e r was i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e  o f c h i l d r e n t o comprehend m e t a p h o r .  of f u n c t i o n , and s t a t e d  background  skills  capacity  one  area ( f o r  of the t a s k ) , and f o r p l a c i n g  demand on c h i l d r e n ' s m e t a c o g n i t i v e  1980a),  for avoiding  i n the  metaphor  and a f t e r t h e and t a s k s .  a s w e l l a s age i s a  Arlin  strong  33  predictor  of a c h i l d ' s  given  limits  the  effective Arlin's  ability  of an o p e r a t i o n a l  in producing  findings  indicates  support  frequently,  that  and  level,  t h o s e of B i l l o w  Gardner  linguistic  metaphors.  investigate  difficulty  further  misunderstanding  of metaphor ought  t o d i s c o v e r the ground  demands o f a p a r t i c u l a r versus  form  t o p i c l e s s metaphors),  sentences  a t t h r e e age  (in  i n an  presented  first  which the  skywriting  was  levels  individual  i n one  sentence  metaphor  metaphoric  of  Thus t h e y  by  riddles).  One  ( s i x , seven testing  and  listened  marking  the  s k y , " o r as a r i d d l e  "What  o r as a q u a s i - a n a l o g y  "A  to  sentence the  metaphor "The  topicless  must d i s c o v e r t h e t o p i c )  scar  twenty  f o r example,  s k y , " o r as a  a  sky?"  metaphoric  Each  the ground)  "The  marks t h e  nine)  as a p r e d i c a t i v e  s k y , " o r as a s i m i l e  task  (predicative  hundred  forms:  the  a  an  topicless  situation.  linguistic  the  and  marking  and  to  sentence  scar  sky?"  whether  o r t o s u r f a c e a s p e c t s of  ( i n which the l i s t e n e r  to  of a metaphor, or t o the  a  marks t h e  sought  determining  must u n d e r s t a n d  a scar marking  capabilities  t o be a t t r i b u t e d  presented either  listener  was  five  language  considerable d i f f i c u l t y  ( p r e d i c a t i v e metaphors v e r s u s s i m i l e s ;  15 s e n t e n c e s was  comprehension.  metaphoric  of m e t a p h o r i c  m e t a p h o r s v e r s u s a n a l o g i e s and children  use  they e x h i b i t  in comprehending this  were  (1980) d e s c r i b e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h  although c h i l d r e n  age,  treatments  that  (1975).  seem t o have r u d i m e n t a r y  even a t a v e r y e a r l y  inability  both  increased metaphorical  W i n n e r , E n g e l and which  t o comprehend m e t a p h o r s , and  skywriting is like  was  was  like  a scar  but  s c a r marks t h e  A l l subjects received  "It  skin  three  34  sentences expressed i n each comprehension or  was  measured  by an e x p l i c a t i o n  of the either  task.  five  suggest  metaphors,  that  and  A l t h o u g h not a l l t h e i r  children. recognize grounds  a s p e c t s of the s u r f a c e pose  the a s s e r t e d  of p h y s i c a l  unfamiliarity analogical  resemblance  the  ground.  it  comparison,  contrast,  Baldwin,  i s n o t an a b i l i t y  causes comprehension knowledge.  Baldwin  for  the c o r r e c t  based  their  Ortony  i s not  and  sixth  similes  grade  the  vehicles  second p a r t  i n which  although  t o be  the a n a l y t i c  topicless for  children  taken due  Readance  form  that  i t i s lack  is a  that  they c o u l d  theories  of the f i r s t  and  of T v e r s k y  and  experiments, n i n e t y - f i v e  think  asked  to l i s t of.  experiment,  of  precondition  of a metaphor o r s i m i l e ,  o f t h e f i g u r e s and  that  the h y p o t h e s i s that  attribute  s e n t e n c e s , and  of  explicating  s t u d e n t s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h m e t a p h o r s in short  on  to the  (1982) a s s e r t  for children;  the s i m i l a r i t y In two  based  literally,  task of  with the metaphoric  matching  the  the n o n - e x p l i c i t n e s s  et a l . investigated  1979a).  embedded  interpretations  form,  difficulties  of  predicative  difficulties  L u c e and  interpretation  s t u d y on  (Ortony,  and  t o cope  knowledge o f t h e s p e c i f i c  by  e q u i v a l e n c e of a metaphor  of the metaphoric  the  predictions  to comprehension  Winner e_t a l . c o n c l u d e d t h a t that  subjects'  the r e s u l t s  forms  obstacles  t h e y do e x p e r i e n c e c o m p r e h e n s i o n  In  that  t h e t a s k demands p o s e d  metaphors a r e encoded,  The  by m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s  were c o n f i r m e d , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s s t a t e study  forms.  to write  fifth  and their  a l l the a t t r i b u t e s  In a d d i t i o n ,  i n the  s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d  of  35  with  the  asked  figures  w h i c h t h e y had  to choose,  from a g i v e n  w h i c h was  critical  was  that  found to  list  provide  appropriate  list  that  of  important  the  r e s u l t s of  knowledge of resolution this  of  to  conclude  increasing abilities Gaus  s i m i l e s , and  (1980) has  interpret  criticized  of  context.  She  suggests that  validity,  for  f i g u r a t i v e language  isolation  in either  as  a valuable  under  longer The  studies  comparison contextual  r e s u l t s of  comprehension (Billow,  the  metaphor w i t h o u t  1975;  the  that  the  abilities Gentner,  than  a  to  the  the  present the  is Baldwin  of  their  investigate  the  supporting  ecological  in classroom  studies  et  l i e in  i s r a r e l y encountered  consistent  of  forms.  which  lack  that  implication  may  surrounding,  studies  the  in increasing  language  r e a l w o r l d or  with  similes.  position  Consequently,  studies  comprehension  the  to  a_l. a s s e r t  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of m e t a p h o r  knowledge r a t h e r  t o a n a l y s e and  the  is critical  instructional effectiveness  students'  Nonetheless,  support  It  subjects'  their ability  Baldwin et  s p e c i f i c word k n o w l e d g e . that  simile.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased  matching a t t r i b u t e  the  and  attribute  f o r m e t a p h o r s and  t h e i r experiments  i s that  the  metaphor o r  interpretations.  m e t a p h o r s and  assertion  sensitive al.  the  the  a t t r i b u t e s and  interpretations  appropriate  attributes,  a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between  Furthermore, a t t r i b u t e prompting number  of  to u n d e r s t a n d i n g  t h e r e was  ability  incorrectly interpreted,  in  assignments.  findings metaphor  which  serve  presented  conditions. studies  suggest  that  children's  have begun t o d e v e l o p by 1977).  These a b i l i t i e s  metaphor  preschool  age  then proceed  on  36  a regular  developmental c o u r s e which  children's  increased  sophistication and G a r d n e r ,  (Arlin,  1974).  the n o n - l i t e r a l 1980),  w o r l d knowledge  seems t o p a r a l l e l and c o g n i t i v e  1978; A s c h & N e r l o v e , 1960; B i l l o w ,  Furthermore, c h i l d r e n  n a t u r e o f metaphor  their  interpreting  when s p e c i f i c  when t h e c o m p a r i s o n  i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y  & Readance,  1982; Winner,  conclusions  support the a s s e r t i o n  increasing in  increasing  T h i s view metaphor  their  knowledge  affirms  The  use of language  consistency  interpretation variables targets The  employed  Nerlove  qualities (1960)  adjectives apply  the notion  of Ortony  entity,  First,  s u c h a s warm, c o l d ,  entity. studies i s  Second,  text  t h e metaphor  are r e l a t i v e l y  concrete.  refer to  a c t i o n s and f u n c t i o n s .  (1974)  used  that  t h e metaphor  of each of t h e s e metaphors  or f a m i l i a r  than  but r a t h e r a  by s u c h  Asch and  double-function  and d e e p ,  f o r example,  and a s k e d s u b j e c t s t o human  in  metaphor.  (1980b)  o f t h e above  t y p e and t o p i c .  them t o o t h e r d o m a i n s ,  may l i e  and w o r l d ) r a t h e r  to express a c o g n i t i v e  factors.  and G a r d n e r  These  t o a n a l y z e and i n t e r p r e t  i n a l l the studies  shared a t t r i b u t e s  tangible  1980).  p r o c e s s e s a r e not c o m p l i c a t e d  as d i s c o u r s e  (Baldwin, Luce  comprehension  (lexical  of t h e f i n d i n g s  p r o b a b l y due t o t h r e e  attributes  of Baldwin e t a l . that  i s not merely a l i n g u i s t i c  particular  when  i s l a c k i n g , or  explicit  i n metaphor  abilities  certainly  word knowledge  Engel & Gardner,  effectiveness  students'  metaphors  e x p e r i e n c e , when c r i t i c a l  are not i d e n t i f i e d ,  instructional  to recognize  (Winner, E n g e l & Gardner,  b u t do e n c o u n t e r d i f f i c u l t i e s  t h e c o n t e n t i s beyond  appear  1975;  personality.  37  The  remaining  which the  three  objects being  the  linguistic  was  like  is  form  there  from  i s an  the  uniform  Grindstaff  " use  of  explication  and  Muller  the assessment  subjects at  & Gardner,  four, age  (1975) r e v i e w e d of  vehicle  of  abilities  as  follows:  of  the  year  levels  (9,  specific  additional  of e a c h age  13,  17 y e a r s , and  ability  up  68-90 p e r c e n t  of  additional  experience  Cunningham literature metaphor  to  as  with  in a text  upon  to the  seventeen, category.  56-82  the  a  were  percent  seventeen-  success  of  school  increased maturity  and  literature.  (1976) a l s o  investigate  w e l l as  the  e a c h metaphor  t h i r t e e n - y e a r o l d s and  of  young, a d u l t )  i n one  olds,  in l i t e r a t u r e ,  One  the a b i l i t y  t o age  gains except  g a i n s were a t t r i b u t e d  the  Results indicated  the n i n e - y e a r  instruction  as  Reports  r e c o g n i t i o n of  group to understand  47-76 p e r c e n t  The  tasks  literature.  of  olds.  pond  Third,  summarized  c o n s i s t e d of d e t e r m i n i n g  in comprehension  w i t h a d u l t s making no  and  know a b o u t  metaphors.  The  1980).  Educational Progress  topic  gain  "the  and/or matching  i n c l u d e d the  significant  1982),  athlete  r a i n d r o p s were t e a r s  t o comprehend m e t a p h o r , w h i c h and  "the  from  Condition  (1970-71) on what y o u n g A m e r i c a n s of  f o r example,  "the  (Winner, Engel  targets in  identifiable  Luce & Readance,  1 9 7 5 ) , and  N a t i o n a l Assessment  aspect  sentence  measures.  Long C o n t e x t  U.S.  the metaphors,  (Baldwin,  sky  simple  c o m p a r e d were r e a d i l y  (Billow,  the e x p e r i m e n t a l 2.2.2  of  a cheetah"  his mirror"  falling  s t u d i e s used  used  the  the  selections  i n f l u e n c e of  from c h i l d r e n ' s t h e amount  r e a d i n g comprehension  of  of t h a t  text.  38  The  subjects,  one  hundred  and n i n e t y  sixth  200-word p a s s a g e s w h i c h were i d e n t i c a l metaphoric  language. estimates,  passage  significantly  metaphoric  passage.  cloze  comprehension  selections  Cunningham c o n c l u d e d t h a t  difficult several is  from c h i l d r e n ' s than p r e v i o u s l y  problems  highly  metaphors  and  unnaturally t h e 200  into  words w i t h a man  First,  this  Second,  asking  (1980)  Mrs. Day  I saw  children  was  Day  talking  to complete  validity  comprehension  (1976)  difficulties fifth-grade effects  cloze  ability  the  o f t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e a s a measure of  text  i s questionable.  Winkeljohann Cunningham  in a  Moreover,  to a  an  seem an a p p r o p r i a t e measure o f t h e i r  construct  of a t e x t ,  c o n t a i n i n g metaphors.  Mother,  Mother,  test,  t o comprehend a t e x t  passage  pitching  after  hardly  reading  "Well,  to "Well,  Mrs.  notes  eighteen  a u t h o r ' s metaphors would  a single  more  the m e t a p h o r i c  i s equivalent  morning,  b e i n g more  be g e n e r a l l y  f o r example,  t h i s morning,  non-  therefore  However Gaus  word t e x t ,  i n the h a l l , "  i n the h a l l . "  may  of the  readability  metaphoric, containing  school  when I g o t t o s c h o o l man  thought.  w i t h the study.  within  when I d a n c e d  p a s s a g e , and  literature  identical  of t h e m e t a p h o r i c  lower than comprehension  than a non-metaphoric  two  e x c e p t f o r t h e amount o f  e s t i m a t e s do n o t a c c o u n t f o r a m e t a p h o r i c p a s s a g e difficult  read  Although both passages y i e l d e d  readability was  graders,  (1979)  with regard  p o s e d by and  reached s i m i l a r  sixty  of metaphors  conclusions  to r e a d a b i l i t y  literature  selections.  eighth-grade children i n p r o s e on  reading  t o t h o s e of  e s t i m a t e s and She  used  sixty  to investigate  comprehension.  the  the  39  Controlling inability  f o r the l i m i t a t i o n s  to respond to l i t e r a t u r e ,  comprehension ability from  difficulties,  She  reading  as e s t a b l i s h e d  by  and  containing thought It  readability and  comprehension  passage  i s a hindrance in reading level indicator  the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p r o s e  t o be a most complex  either  interaction  of  and  Thus  investigation  be  said  that  to  which  of  t o p i c s and  or  two  the  passage  an  in narrative  Rather,  the study i s  there are f a c t o r s  can  of  metaphor  t h e s t u d y was  metaphor  a s t o whether  of l i t e r a t u r e  versions  for similarity  s t u d e n t s ' comprehension.  a general investigation the language  literal  knowledge o f p a s s a g e  i t cannot  one  d i d n o t compare s t u d e n t s '  of the e x t e n t t o which  affects  difficulties  She  nor d i d she c o n t r o l prior  used  t h r e e or f o u r metaphors,  o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c a l and  same p a s s a g e s ,  in  language  f o r m u l a s i s n o t a good  that  m e t a p h o r s o r no m e t a p h o r s .  vehicles.  complete  language.  containing  structure  subjects'  extracted  s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t W i n k e l j o h a n n  passages  material  measured the  books by h a v i n g them  metaphoric  metaphors appears  and  possible reading  sixth-grade students, that  reading d i f f i c u l t y ,  ability,  p a r a p h r a s e q u e s t i o n s f o r each  concluded that  for f i f t h  and  low m e n t a l  c o n t a i n i n g metaphor  seven Newbery Award w i n n i n g  read.  by  Winkeljohann  t o comprehend p a s s a g e s  s e t s of m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  of  imposed  present  inherent  comprehension  children.  Smith  (1973) i n v e s t i g a t e d  that  forty  s i x t h - g r a d e and  from  r e a d i n g passages  and  forty  containing  compared  the understanding  eighth-grade children obtained metaphor.  After  being  40  presented  with  t e n m e t a p h o r s , e a c h embedded  or a s h o r t paragraph, verbal This  in either  subjects' understanding  a  sentence  was measured by  r e t r o s p e c t i o n , a n d by t h e A s s o c i a t e d Commonplaces  test  theory  was d e v i s e d  o f metaphor.  by t h e r e s e a r c h e r The t e s t  b a s e d on B l a c k ' s  Test. (1962)  r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s t o s e l e c t the  a p p r o p r i a t e commonplaces o r a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r e a c h metaphor a given  list  English  (N.C.T.E.) Look a t L i t e r a t u r e  in  order  o f words.  to test  The N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s of  subjects' higher  abilities,  t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether  metaphoric  language  skills. factors.  test  level  correlation  I t was a l s o f o u n d  critical  higher  was f o u n d  that  was a l s o  the a b i l i t y  i s a s s o c i a t e d with  A positive  administered  reading  to  understand  level  reading  between t h e s e two  i n general, simple,  concrete,  common a n d d e n o t a t i v e m e t a p h o r s were e a s i e r t o u n d e r s t a n d complex,  a b s t r a c t , unusual  and c o n n o t a t i v e  addition,  a descriptive  responses  t o the metaphors i n d i c a t e d  were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h undifferentiated  metaphors.  P i a g e t i a n a n a l y s i s of s u b j e c t s '  concrete,  that the poorest  global,  responses  d i f f u s e and  schema, a n d e g o - c e n t r i c o r t r a n s d u c t i v e  most commonly d i s p l a y e d by t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n ,  the  responses  differentiated deductive these  demonstrated  flexible,  schema, and c o n t a i n e d  reasoning  responses  than  In  thinking best  from  while  abstract,  examples o f h y p o t h e t i c o -  and p r o p o s i t i o n a l thought.  As  expected,  were made, f o r t h e most p a r t , by t h e o l d e r  children. Arter  (1976) s o u g h t  in a text f a c i l i t a t e  t o a s c e r t a i n whether  the comprehension  or not metaphors  and r e t e n t i o n o f the  41  material text.  i n t h e t e x t , and i n c r e a s e  One h u n d r e d a n d f o r t y - t h r e e  570-word p a s s a g e c o n t a i n i n g equivalent  literal  multiple-choice Arter  found  Using  that  several  measurement and p r o c e d u r a l  unfamiliar Arter  learning.  assumption  Arter  that  that  recall  results.  were u n w i l l i n g  Arter  o r a l free  that  rather  than  written  might  have a l l e v i a t e d t h i s  found  that  for  there  low v e r b a l  previous  evidence  in a that  encountered.  incorrect.  ability  free  problem.  effect  o f metaphor  simple  computer  subjects  by Mayer  be an Second,  t h i s may  Third, Arter t o complete  (1976) r e s e a r c h  have  noted  that  the tasks.  recalls  i n a group s i t u a t i o n ,  Despite  t h e s e p r o b l e m s , she e f f e c t o f metaphor  w h i c h was c o n s i s t e n t  (1975) who h a d f o u n d a  programming  were  i n an i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g  facilitative  f o r low a b i l i t y  subjects  with  significant  i n t h e l e a r n i n g of  languages. motivated  P e a r s o n , R a p h a e l , T e P a s k e and H y s e r finding that  and t h a t  recalls  was a g e n e r a l  research  Arter's  n o t e d , however,  proved  many o f h e r s u b j e c t s  situation  recalls,  t h e v e h i c l e s o f t h e t e n m e t a p h o r s employed  the free  suggested  a  and an i n t e r e s t r a t i n g ,  p r o b l e m s were  a l l w e l l Tnown t o t h e s u b j e c t s ,  confounded  free  t h e " S a s q u a t c h " would  t o p i c to her subjects  noted  written  the presence of metaphors  facilitates  Arter's  read  i n i n t e r e s t a n d no c o n c l u s i v e  passage  First,  pupils  t e n metaphors or t h e i r  comprehension q u e s t i o n s ,  the notion  i n t e r e s t i n the  sixth-grade  either  translations.  no d i f f e r e n c e  suppporting  not  readers'  a s e t o f s t u d i e s by  (1979).  the metaphoric  They were  by  Arter's  versions  at  l e a s t a s c o m p r e h e n s i b l e and memorable a s t h e l i t e r a l  impressed  o f p a s s a g e s were  42  p a s s a g e s , and t h e y and  that  metaphors w i t h v e h i c l e s  subjects,  they c o u l d  hypotheses. grade,  sixth-grade,  experiments concluded  find  free  noted  their less  for Arter's  store  better  that  and o r a l  of r e g u l a r i t y .  than,  recall their  a t the t h i r d -  across  First,  recall  knowledge.  Second,  familiarity:  to subjects,  the  bridging Petrie  function  (1979).  They a t t r i b u t e d t h i s  o f metaphor h y p o t h e s i z e d  Third,  the researchers  by A r t e r  stated  Pearson in  their  third  First,  (1976) a n d  boundaries.  capabilities  of the s u r r o u n d i n g  text  paraphrases.  e_t a _ l . , however, d i d e x p e r i e n c e  study.  familiarity  literal  recall  was  their  structure  they  greater  than  that the  for  to e l i c i t  than  was  f i n d i n g to the  metaphors appeared not t o e x h i b i t c l u s t e r i n g  the equivalent  appears t o  b u t when t h e p a s s a g e m a t e r i a l  The  than  researchers  when t h e p a s s a g e m a t e r i a l  m e t a p h o r s ' e f f e c t s were l i m i t e d t o s u r f a c e  failed  i s always  t h e m e t a p h o r s were no more memorable  equivalents;  equivalents.  they  i s within the  device  f a m i l i a r , m e t a p h o r s were remembered b e t t e r  literal  three  of comparable  i n s i t u a t i o n s where t h e v e h i c l e  of world  rather  their  o f metaphor  t h e r o l e of metaphor as a b r i d g i n g  literal  original  subjects levels,  found  c h i l d r e n and a d u l t ' s  depend upon p a s s a g e familiar  they  were p a t t e r n s  paraphrase  that  known t o be f a m i l i a r t o t h e  support  recalls,  there  that  subject's  used a d i f f e r e n t content,  and u n d e r g r a d u a t e  good a s , and o f t e n  literal  i f they  Using d i f f e r e n t passages,  than w r i t t e n  as  felt  they d i d not f i n d  effect for recall  some  an e x p e c t e d  of i n c i d e n t a l idea  experiment, and s u b j e c t s '  difficulties  units  in their  r a t i n g s of the f a m i l i a r i t y of  43  the  t o p i c s was i n c o n s i s t e n t .  questioned Second,  the v a l i d i t y  evidenced  addition,  They  measures; effects  of metaphors,  a "floor  i n the t h i r d  urge c a u t i o n  recall  recall  interaction  probed r e c a l l  targets  effect"  with regard  comprehension  recognition  test  whether  be u s e d  short  metaphorical  the  summarizing  the f i g u r a t i v e  metaphor  itself,  (1979),  also  u s e o f f r e e and p r o b e and s u g g e s t  investigated  that  the question  comprehension.  college  recall  n a t u r e o f metaphor  and whether  t o the f i n d i n g s  measures, enhances  the i n c l u s i o n  they  examined  memory f o r  o f metaphor i n  of the i n f o r m a t i o n s u r r o u n d i n g  indicated  increased memorability f o r The c o n c l u d i n g  than t h e e q u i v a l e n t  t h e metaphors.  recall.  statements, seventy-one  literal  metaphors  s e n t e n c e s , and  of P e a r s o n , Raphael, TePaske  t h e r e was a l s o an i n c r e a s e  preceding  student  studies.  passages with metaphoric c o n c l u s i o n s .  contrast  r e c a l l of  l i t e r a l or  The r e s u l t s  in  recall.  passages with e i t h e r  the  better  and v e r s i o n f o r  help or hinder prose  the comprehension  were r e c a l l e d  were  such as a paraphrase  (1979)  p r o s e enhances metaphor.  topic  t o the sole  s t u d e n t s a s s u b j e c t s , and w r i t t e n whether  while there  was f o u n d f o r f r e e  i n future  didactic  between t h e  t h e r e were none f o r f r e e  metrics  o r not metaphors  eight  namely,  between  familiarity.  and t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n  of comprehension,  R e y n o l d s and S c h w a r t z  Using  about  e x p e r i m e n t , due t o poor  t a s k s a s measures  additional  of  judgements  e v i d e n c e d by p r o b e d r e c a l l  by f r e e  significant  In  of t h e i r  the researchers  P e a r s o n e_t a l . n o t e d some d i f f e r e n c e s  comprehension  the  As a r e s u l t ,  & Hyser  i n memory f o r t h e c o n t e x t s  44  This  contrasting  factors. rather  First,  than  f i n d i n g may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o s e v e r a l  R e y n o l d s and S c h w a r t z u s e d c o l l e g e  elementary  school  Second, they used w r i t t e n Third,  they  be  rather  the  for several  literature  concerning  i n memory o f t e x t  studied,  recalled.  of  the passage  reasons.  or  measures.  literal  position  Meyer  f a c t o r may  a conclusion (1975)  the s t r u c t u r a l importance  ideas  that  (that  recall  summarizes of idea  low  s t r u c t u r a l importance).  concluding  Concluding  remembered, and a l s o  memory f o r p r e c e d i n g  information.  metaphor p l a c e d  (that  or poorly tend to  that  is likely  importance) i s , u n i t s of  to carry  with  t o be b e t t e r  them a  important  a metaphor p l a c e d  i n a p o s i t i o n of lower  meaning  statements a r e thus  u n i t s of r e l a t e d  Thus i t f o l l o w s  statement  protocols  structural  s e c o n d a r y themes and d e s c r i p t i o n s  t o be w e l l  be w e l l  promising  c l o s e l y corresponds to the t o t a l  i s , u n i t s of high  i s of  of a l l t h e v a r i a b l e s  i n a passage w i l l  subjects'  omit  a  This  Firstly,  in a text.  and  greater  recall  i n which metaphors or t h e i r  and n o t e s t h a t  She n o t e s t h a t  information  likely  oral free  t h e s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e a p p e a r s t o be t h e most  p r e d i c t i n g whether  state  than  had been embedded.  s t r u c t u r a l importance  units  in  than passages  equivalents  significant  high  rather  subjects.  used passages w i t h e i t h e r metaphoric  conclusions literal  s t u d e n t s as t h e i r  students  in a  remembered  than a  s t r u c t u r a l importance i n  text. The  r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s  abilities contextual  investigating children's  t o comprehend m e t a p h o r s p r e s e n t e d conditions  are inconsistent.  under  long  Grindstaff  and Muller  45  (1975) and S m i t h (1973) document a d e v e l o p m e n t a l students' and  abilities  t o comprehend  W i n k e l j o h a n n (1979) c o n s i d e r  difficult  t o comprehend  however,  Arter  than  metaphor. metaphoric  literal  growth i n  Cunningham  l a n g u a g e t o be more  language.  In  as c o m p r e h e n s i b l e as i t s l i t e r a l  under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s  metaphor  on p a s s a g e c o m p r e h e n s i o n . these  inconsistent  employed  as t a r g e t s  familiarity children's .the are  greatly  literature  equivalent,  and  that  have a f a c i l i t a t i v e  effect  t h e t y p e s o f metaphor  i n form, n a t u r a l n e s s  f o r example,  and  some a r e s e l e c t e d f r o m  ("...(she) watched the t r e e s  m e t a p h o r s embedded  i s at  (Winkeljohann, in texts  tossing in  1979));  others  especially written for  p u r p o s e s ("Mrs. G l a s s d r i e d h e r hands on t h e t o n g u e of  apron"  (Cunningham,  experimental  1976)).  S e c o n d , a wide v a r i e t y o f  t a s k s h a s been e m p l o y e d ,  some o f w h i c h demand much  more t h a n mere c o m p r e h e n s i o n of m e t a p h o r ; exercises literary  metaphor  reasons are suggested f o r  First,  f r e n z i e d l a s h i n g of the wind"  research her  vary  may  Several  findings.  of c o n t e n t :  contrived  contrast,  ( 1 9 7 6 ) , P e a r s o n , R a p h a e l , T e P a s k e and H y s e r  (1979) and R e y n o l d s and S c h w a r t z (1979) n o t e t h a t least  (1976)  (Cunningham, style,  Winkeljohann, processing recalls  (Arter,  skills.  Third,  require  multiple-choice  1979)  that  1976)  involve  (Smith,  require  the t e x t s  well  developed  and  written  written  production  i n w h i c h t h e m e t a p h o r s a r e embedded  range over a v a r i e t y of d i s c o u r s e passages e x t r a c t e d  1973;  which can produce  m i g h t not o t h e r w i s e have o c c u r r e d , 1976)  cloze  a knowledge o f t h e a u t h o r ' s  questions  a cueing  f o r example,  t y p e s and t o p i c s , from  f r o m Newbery Award w i n n i n g  children's  books  46  (Winkeljohann, unnatural didactic  1979),  narrative texts  results.  contexts,  passages  (Reynolds  Nonetheless, these  f o r example, t h r o u g h h i g h l y (Cunningham,  & Schwartz,  some t e n t a t i v e  First,  i t appears  as  1976)  c o n c l u s i o n s may  that  children's  abilities  developmental  seems t o p a r a l l e l  and  children's to  c o u r s e which  with l i t e r a t u r e  their  (Grindstaff  & Muller,  to deal  conventional  readability  difficulties  that  Ortony's  1979).  grammatical  language  a l t h o u g h Cunningham and  p r o c e e d on a their  1975).  (Smith,  f o r m u l a s do  phenonmenon  & Schwartz  Pearson,  Raphael,  comprehension facilitative versions  of passages  memorable as  i s consistent  with  (Ortony,  versions  of passages  rather  I980b).^  recall,  were a t l e a s t versions.  appeared  world  related  than a  Fourth,  (1979)—using as  and  cloze  measures-  h i n d e r the comprehension  i n the f i r s t  the l i t e r a l  t o be  1976;  (1979) u s i n g r e c a l l ,  effects:  growing  (Cunningham,  (1976) and W i n k e l j o h a n n  q u e s t i o n s and  regular  f o r the reading  is a functional  T e P a s k e and H y s e r  with  Third,  not account  impose  metaphor  t h a t metaphor c a n  Reynolds  from  Second,  1973).  multiple-choice questions, respectively,  concluded  to deal  e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the  This conclusion  that  be drawn  w i t h metaphor a p p e a r  metaphor may  assertion  and  and  general reading a b i l i t y  Winkeljohann,  age,  development  abilities  short  f o r metaphors p r e s e n t e d i n minimal  early  cognitive  to  and  1979).  m e t a p h o r a r e p r e s e n t a t an  maturity,  contrived  Arter  of p r o s e , (1976)  and  (1979) u s i n g b o t h found a range place,  the  of  metaphoric  as c o m p r e h e n s i b l e Secondly,  the  and  metaphoric  t o be more memorable t h a n  the  47  literal  versions  was  unfamiliar  the  metaphors  1979); and the  third  & Hyser, 3.  were c o n c l u d i n g  when s u b j e c t s  1979)  With  view  Metaphor  as a g r a m m a t i c a l  (Arter,  i n another  the  that  a Comparative  of t h e metaphor  has a l s o been has been  t e r m metaphor has f o r t h e two  comprehended.  Ortony  view  research  studies.  one  that  (I979d)  suggests that  which  attributes. been  by  a l i k e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  (1974) who  the  and as  well  of  both  referents  communication.  the r e a l i z a t i o n  of a  referents  o f t h e s h a r e d a t t r i b u t e or~  A d i f f e r e n t but not e n t i r e l y  p r o p o s e d by K i n t s c h  on  Furthermore,  between  o r c o n c e p t u a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between t h e  i s solved  than  a metaphoric  the f u n c t i o n  really  process involves  this  they are  that  tension  relies  t o s h a r e a common f u n c t i o n  p r o c e s s by w h i c h  been  A  used t o r e f e r to both s i m i l e s  appear  shared comprehension  the  taken f o r the purposes of  simile i s to express a s i m i l a r i t y  The  1979).  o f m e t a p h o r has  metaphor and a r e not  TePaske  a review of  interpretation i s required.  a s a common p s y c h o l o g i c a l  surface  r e g a r d e d as a f u n c t i o n a l r a t h e r  been  In  PRESENT STUDY  l a n g u a g e phenomenon, and  than a l i t e r a l  metaphors,  1976).  (Reynolds & Schwartz, THE  when  Schwartz,  (Pearson, Raphael,  s u r r o u n d i n g c o n t e x t to s i g n a l to the reader that rather  1979);  (Reynolds &  to t h e o r e t i c a l background,  i n the m a j o r i t y  study.  instance  CONSIDERATIONS OF  revealed  Comparative  & Hyser,  topic  metaphor e f f e c t s were l i m i t e d t o t h e i r  but not  regard  literature  statements  when t h e t e x t  were o f low a b i l i t y  b o u n d a r i e s i n one  SUMMARY AND  taken  certain conditions:  (Pearson, Raphael, TePaske  place,  structure  under  i n c o m p a t i b l e view  suggests that  the  has  48  comprehension metaphor and  o f a metaphor p r o c e e d s by t h e c o n v e r s i o n  into a simile.  simile l i e s  Thus, t h e d i f f e r e n c e  i n the surface  i s usually  "like"  o r " a s " , w h i l e a metaphor  in  which  For  indicated  metaphor signals.  A  by t h e p r e s e n c e o f s u c h words a s  i t i s embedded t o f o r c e  relies  p r i m a r i l y on t h e c o n t e x t  a metaphorical  the p u r p o s e s of t h i s study which  comprehension  between  structural linguistic  simile  of the  interpretation.  f o c u s e s on t h e  p r o c e s s e s , metaphor and s i m i l e have been  regarded  as o n e . With a  regard  to children's  review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e  do  suggests that  comprehend m e t a p h o r i c a l  metaphors l i e w i t h i n young c h i l d r e n language  abilities  others'  metaphors  comes w i t h the  increased  world and w i t h It  also  readability actually  ability,  a l t h o u g h metaphor  difficulties  when t h e t o p i c  language.  t h e i r own o r only  and e x p e r i e n c e  with  i n text  i s , when t h e v e h i c l e text  metaphor  of a given  remembered t h a n  of the given  may  present  w h i c h a r e n o t i n d i c a t e d by  the comprehension  be b e t t e r  (that  that  are not  awareness that  m e a s u r e s , under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s  metaphors w i l l  seems  language.  facilitate  equivalents  to explain  a metalinguistic  age, c o g n i t i v e  appears that  comprehension  constraints  in their written  the a b i l i t y  requires  It also  use m e t a p h o r i c a l  i n t h e i r s p e e c h a n d , when t a s k  a p p e a r s , however, t h a t  metaphor,  the c o n t e n t s of the  t h e i r world experience.  c a n and do s p o n t a n e o u s l y  with  young c h i l d r e n c a n and  language provided  overwhelming, can produce metaphors It  to deal  their  text  and t h e  literal  o f t h e metaphor  i s unfamiliar,  may  i s known,  and when t h e  49  concluding metaphor  statement  i n text  i s metaphoric).  on r e c a l l  Obviously, the e f f e c t s of  and c o m p r e h e n s i o n  metaphor and t h e s u r r o u n d i n g t e x t  a r e n o t y e t c l e a r ; n o r does a  sufficient  body o f e v i d e n c e y e t e x i s t .  conditions  was t h e f i n d i n g o f b u t a s i n g l e  The and  p r e s e n t study, which  Pearson,  further  Raphael,  when t h e v e h i c l e  not  facilitated  o f t h e metaphor  failed  she d i d f i n d  facilitative  definitive  their  Pearson  and a d u l t s '  recall  whether o r  interest i n ,  and  support f o r her  f o r h e r low v e r b a l several  i n c l u d i n g an i n c o r r e c t  TePaske  and Hyser  of the  (1979).  t h e e f f e c t s o f m e t a p h o r and  on s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y  t o u n d e r s t a n d and  et. a l . r e a c h e d t h r e e major  s u p p o r t e d and e x t e n d e d  children  of the  and h e r r e s e a r c h m o t i v a t e d a s e t o f  e_t a l . i n v e s t i g a t e d  familiarity  that i s ,  i n the t e x t s .  however, e n c o u n t e r e d  by P e a r s o n , R a p h a e l ,  remember t e x t . which  to ascertain  c o n c e r n i n g the " u n f a m i l i a r i t y " of t h e t o p i c  Pearson topic  comprehension,  some e v i d e n c e f o r a g e n e r a l  Arter,  experimental passage, studies  metaphor a p p e a r s t o  increased  of the m a t e r i a l  measurement a n d p r o c e d u r a l p r o b l e m s assumption  which  e f f e c t o f metaphor on l e a r n i n g  students.  (1976)  ( 1 9 7 9 ) , was d e s i g n e d t o  (1976) s o u g h t  to find  study.  i s known and t h e t o p i c  i n instructional texts  Although Arter  ability  Arter  comprehension  hypotheses,  under  of t h e above  t h e work o f A r t e r  e f f e c t on c h i l d r e n s '  i s unfamiliar. metaphors  Each  and H y s e r  examine t h e c o n d i t i o n s  have a f a c i l i t a t i v e  text  extends  TePaske  of both the  recall  Arter's  hypotheses.  conclusions First,  o f m e t a p h o r s was a l w a y s  of the e q u i v a l e n t  literal  a s good a s  phrases, i n s i t u a t i o n s  50  where t h e v e h i c l e s o f t h e m e t a p h o r s were known by t h e s u b j e c t s . Second,  t h e r o l e o f metaphor a s a f a c i l i t a t o r  depended upon p a s s a g e  familiarity,  that  better  remembered when t h e m a t e r i a l  Third,  metaphor e f f e c t s a p p e a r e d  structure The et  present  al.—that  study focuses  familiarity  d e p e n d s on t o p i c  in light  as p r e d i c t e d ,  significantly  metaphoric  passage  recall  third  than  sixth-grade  questions.  subjects  unfamiliar  passage,  Unfamiliar  about  higher  This  of  three  e t a_l. f o u n d ,  f o r the u n f a m i l i a r passage  on  d i f f e r e n c e was n o t f o u n d , measures.  Furthermore,while the  experiment  consistently  rated  a s l e s s f a m i l i a r t o them t h a n t h e  the third-grade  s t u d e n t s were e v e n l y  o f t h e two p a s s a g e s . of Pearson  t o ensure  to the subjects  (a p a r a p h r a s e  Pearson e t  judgements  Pearson  scores  that  Thus,  split  the present  e t a l . by e m p l o y i n g  text  as  study  a Prior  t o p i c s were F a m i l i a r a n d  as r e q u i r e d ,  m e t a p h o r s were known t o t h e s u b j e c t s .  administered  their  experiment,  recall  the methodology  Knowledge P r e t e s t  Probe  surface  f i n d i n g by P e a r s o n  familiarity—because  in the t h i r d  passage  the f a m i l i a r i t y  modifies  unfamiliar.  t o be l i m i t e d t o t h e i r  f o r the f a m i l i a r metaphoric  however, on on t h e f r e e  to  was  of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s among t h e i r  In t h e i r  familiar  i n the text  t h e r o l e o f metaphor a s a f a c i l i t a t o r o f  experiments.  the  i s , t h a t m e t a p h o r s were  on t h e s e c o n d  e x p r e s s e d some r e s e r v a t i o n s  probed  comprehension  boundaries.  comprehension al.  of  and t h a t  vehicles  of the  In a d d i t i o n , a Metaphor  r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g t e s t ) was  a s an a d d i t i o n a l c o m p r e h e n s i o n  measure.  a d d i t i o n a l measure was recommended by P e a r s o n  This  e t a_l. a s a r e s u l t  51  of  their  conflicting  findings  from p r o b e and f r e e  recall  measures. The  review of l i t e r a t u r e  also  problems  which c o n f r o n t  metaphor  on p r o s e c o m p r e h e n s i o n .  constructing Arter,  metaphors  literal  equivalent equal The  The f i r s t  which a r e n o v e l  i s the problem of  (Ortony, Reynolds &  (Reynolds & Schwartz,  s t a t e m e n t must  1979).  be a s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n i n g  i s t h e p r o b l e m o f knowledge t o w h i c h a metaphor  Raphael, TePaske r e a d e r does  & Hyser,  o f "my h e a d  be v e r y d i f f i c u l t . tasks  about  relates  literal  The  literal  words o f  employed  1979; R e y n o l d s & S c h w a r t z ,  i s like  The t h i r d  a ball  of c o t t o n  and H y s e r  closely (1983)  a r e not c l e a r l y  related examined  (1979)  t o the comprehension the c o n s t r a i n t s which  assessment,  tasks  as each t a s k — o r a l  comprehension  questions  will  of the metaphors.  note that  o f metaphor.  the task  and a r e n o t  Johnston  operate i n reading  and he s u g g e s t s t h a t free  (1978), and  comprehension a r e  u n d e r s t o o d by s u b j e c t s ,  comprehension i s best  If  i s t h e problem of the e x p e r i m e n t a l  demands o f many o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t s o f metaphor complex,  candy"  ( 1 9 8 0 ) , O r t o n y , R e y n o l d s and A r t e r  Pearson, Raphael, TePaske  1979).  t h e n an  t o measure t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n  ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Gaus  t h e domains o f  ( O r t o n y , 1980b; P e a r s o n ,  n o t know a b o u t c o t t o n c a n d y ,  interpretation  too  into  f r e q u e n c y a n d i t must be o f e q u a l s y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y .  second  Emig  of the e f f e c t s of  f o r a c o m p a r i s o n between t h e m e t a p h o r i c a n d  conditions  information  a  an i n v e s t i g a t o r  a number o f m a j o r  1978), and w h i c h c a n be p a r a p h r a s e d e a s i l y  statements t o allow the  revealed  recall,  and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  a v a r i e t y of probe  questions—provides  52  different  y e t complementary  p r o c e s s e s and subjects' (1974)  final  understanding.  response b i a s .  suggest that  preference  for l i t e r a l  design  These  The  language even metaphor.  problems  and m e t h o d o l o g y  about  a reader's reading  f o u r t h problem concerns  G a r d n e r , K i r c h e r , Winner  elementary school  c a p a b l e of comprehending confounded.  information  children though  of the p r e s e n t  study.  appear  they are  R e s u l t s may  were c o n s i d e r e d  and  Perkins t o have  cognitively  t h u s be  carefully  a  i n the  53  The effects  present  DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  study  was d e s i g n e d  o f m e t a p h o r on c h i l d r e n ' s  texts with 1.  III.  familiar  students  and u n f a m i l i a r  subjects f o rthis from  lower,  Richmond, B r i t i s h  study  middle  backgrounds, e n r o l l e d  of e x p o s i t o r y  topics.  the present  i n two a d j a c e n t Columbia.  study.  S c h o o l a n d one c l a s s selected  three grade-seven they  of the ninety-seven  failed  they  subtest  of the Canadian  either  Familiar  During  according to their  non-native  (C.T.B.S.),  The r e m a i n i n g  C.T.B.S.  alternately  or fifty  reading subtest  a s s i g n e d t o read  o r t h e two L i t e r a l experimental  i n the  6.0 on t h e r e a d i n g  s c o r e s were n o t a v a i l a b l e .  the experimental  were  of the P r i o r  T e s t of B a s i c S k i l l s  and t h e Unfami l i a r  School  f o r the following  t h e y were  s c o r e d below g r a d e  t h e two M e t a p h o r i c  Elementary  students e n r o l l e d  t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a  The s t u d e n t s were t h e n  interest  District.  were e x c l u d e d  speakers,  s t u d e n t s were r a n k e d  District  by t h e E l e m e n t a r y  f o r the School  English  C.T.B.S.  School  schools  teachers' willingness to  ( d e s c r i b e d below),  scores.  from  a t James M c K i n n e y  Knowledge P r e t e s t  their  elementary  at W i l l i a m Bridge Elementary  classrooms  seven  because of the d i s t r i c t ' s  Two c l a s s e s  Language A r t s C o o r d i n a t o r  reasons:  urban  i n t h e s t u d y when a p p r o a c h e d  Forty-seven  grade  socio-economic  Schools  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r  participate  were f o r t y - s i x  and upper  No. 38 (Richmond) were c h o s e n in  comprehension  t o examine t h e  SUBJECTS The  in  and conducted  v e r s i o n s of the  texts.  period a further  three  students  54  (one  from the  condition) balance data was  number o f  a n a l y s i s , a post made, l e a v i n g  THE  and  f o r a l l or subjects hoc  materials.  one  expository  One  an  M.  text,  school  of  testing.  Thus,  f o r the  a Literal  i n the  to  final subject  Metaphoric  Literal  condition.  and  Literal,  one  t e x t s were u s e d as  while  topic.  the  likely  two  Familiar  text,  "Wombats,"  were a d a p t e d  from  H u n t e d Mammals of  t o be  found  short  a topic  Australian Marsupials  (1970), which a r e  of  experimental  other  Both t e x t s  materials,  (1978) and  the  Bears," described  population,  metaphoric  version  Metaphor T a r g e t s .  called  the  "metaphoric  t h e m s e l v e s were not  of  For  by  in a  rating,  the  Sea  P. elementary  metaphors  finally  two  by  the  selected  experimental  Language E d u c a t o r s ,  by  class  U n i v e r s i t y of f o r use  the  contained  i n the  most n a t u r a l  texts metaphors.  s i x Language  i n the British eight  and  be  brainstorming,  a g r o u p of  t e x t s were j u d g e d , by  t o be  the  a p r o c e s s of  a graduate Composition  Department a t  in fact  they merely c o n t a i n e d  discussion  Education  text  d e s c r i p t i o n , these w i l l  texts" although  metaphoric;  r e w r i t i n g and  E d u c a t o r s and  each e x p e r i m e n t a l  e a s e of  m e t a p h o r s were c o n s t r u c t e d  the  the  Metaphoric  library.  The  of  i n the  "Polar  Unfamiliar  McClung  Crowcroft  The  of  subjects  Metaphoric  supplementary e d u c a t i o n a l  eight  part  from t h e  random e x c l u s i o n  twenty-three  experimental  described  R.  two  in each c o n d i t i o n  twenty-three  versions,  instructional  by  and  EXPERIMENTAL TEXTS  Two  to the  condition  were a b s e n t  the  condition 2.  Literal  Language Columbia.  target  The  positions  a g r o u p of original,  four and  the  55  best  able  t o convey  versions  of both the F a m i l i a r  identical phrases be  t o the Metaphoric  (Literal  equivalent  substituted these w i l l targets  Equivalent  in place  Familiar  texts  texts  and  Literal  the  four  rated  ranged  idea  quite  versions)  from  and L i t e r a l  contained  literal  378 t o 401 words, and  6.39; F a m i l i a r  6.44; and U n f a m i l i a r  i t was assumed t h a t  idea  (Metaphoric units.  i s presented "Polar  (Dale  a r e as  6.00;  6.28.  Each of  of grade  Formula  Literal,  Literal,  text,  7/8  & Chall, follows:  Unfamiliar  A summary o f  i n Table  I below.  B e a r s , " was c h o s e n  most C a n a d i a n c h i l d r e n would be  animal.  "Wombats," was c h o s e n  texts  f o r each text  The  contained  readability level  Readability  t o p i c of the F a m i l i a r  units.  versions)  seventy-two  raw s c o r e s  f a m i l i a r with t h i s  topic,  eight  The t e x t s a n d t h e i r  t h e same number o f i d e a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t e x t s  because  that  were  by t h e E d u c a t o r s t o  u n i t s , and t h e U n f a m i 1 i a r  The D a l e - C h a l l  The  texts  Literal  F o r ease of d e s c r i p t i o n ,  texts."  i n length  t e x t s h a s an e s t i m a t e d  Metaphoric,  In c o n t r a s t ,  because  the U n f a m i l i a r  i t was assumed t h a t  very  C a n a d i a n c h i l d r e n would have any k n o w l e d g e o f t h i s  Australian similar be  Targets),  The  i n A p p e n d i c e s A a n d B.  (Metaphoric  Familiar Metaphoric,  few  except  measured by t h e D a l e - C h a l l  1948).  the  versions,  the " l i t e r a l  approximately  seventy-nine  and t h e U n f a m i l i a r  of the metaphors.  be c a l l e d  four  contained  inferences.  t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e m e t a p h o r s , had been  are presented  The  as  f a c t s and e n g e n d e r  nocturnal  marsupial.  i n some r e s p e c t s  possible  Furthermore,  t o a bear,  t o keep t h e d i s c o u r s e  a s a wombat i s  i t was assumed t h a t  structure  i t would  o f t h e two t e x t s  56  relatively  parallel.  correct. the  I t may  topics  these  "Baseball"  topics  sounding"  also  In p r a c t i c e , be  of  and  these assumptions  i n t e r e s t to note  " C r i c k e t " had  d i d n o t accommodate  that  originally,  been c h o s e n .  t h e embedding  metaphors—-a p e r s : s t e n t  proved  problem  of  f o r the  "naturalmetaphor  researcher.  Table I Characteristics of the Experimental Texts Dale-Chall Words  Idea Units  Metaphoric  399  79  6.39  Grade 7-8  Literal  400  79  6.00  Grade 7-8  Metaphoric  388  72  6.44  Grade 7-8  Literal  375  72  6.28  Grade 7-8  Text  Raw Score  However,  Readability  Familiar  Unfamiliar  57  3.  THE MEASURING The  INSTRUMENTS  f o l l o w i n g measuring  (1) R e a d i n g  subtest  scores  (C.T.B.S.),  (2) P r i o r  instruments  on t h e C a n a d i a n T e s t  Knowledge P r e t e s t ,  (4)  Probed R e c a l l  and  (6) D e b r i e f i n g I n t e r v i e w s .  the  C.T.B.S.  to  Questions,  reading  the experimental  reading  subtest  Canadian Test  A l l the instruments  were p i l o t - t e s t e d  reading  test  o f s u b j e c t s was t h e r e a d i n g  of Basic  Skills  i n October  Bridge  on t h e C.T.B.S. cumulative  reasons:  (a) t o ensure t h a t  with  record  subtest  files. there  o f g r a d e 6.0 w i t h i n  subjects assigned t o the L i t e r a l  regard  School  reading  students'  of the  w h i c h was a d m i n i s t e r e d  of W i l l i a m  assigned  prior  to identify  subtest  personnel  that  except f o r  two months  w h i c h was u s e d  i n June  level  Probe,  Skills  o f James M c K i n n e y S c h o o l  ability  Skills  (3) O r a l F r e e R e c a l l s ,  personnel  scores  of Basic  period.  standardized ability  i n the study:  (5) M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e M e t a p h o r  3.1 The C a n a d i a n T e s t Of B a s i c The  were u s e d  by t h e  1982, and by t h e 1982.  Students'  were o b t a i n e d  The s c o r e s  from t h e  were u s e d  was a b a s e l i n e  reading  t h e sample, and (b) t o e n s u r e  t o the Metaphoric  c o n d i t i o n and those  c o n d i t i o n w o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y  t o measured r e a d i n g  ability  of the Metaphoric  reading  ability  f o r two  ability.  The mean  equal  reading  s u b j e c t s was g r a d e 7.70 a n d t h e mean  of the L i t e r a l  s u b j e c t s was g r a d e 7.76.  58  3.2 P r i o r Knowledge The  p r i o r knowledge p r e t e s t  was d e s i g n e d and  t o ensure that  Unfamiliar  vehicles world  Pretest was a s h o r t  the text  to the population  test  which  t o p i c s would be F a m i l i a r  as r e q u i r e d ,  of the metaphors l a y w i t h i n  knowledge and v o c a b u l a r y  written  and t h a t the  the subjects'  experience.  s t o r e of  See A p p e n d i x C f o r a  copy of t h e t e s t . With regard write in  a l l they  to topic  knew a b o u t  t h e form o f s h o r t  "appearance,"  knowledge,  "daily  each t o p i c , P o l a r  statements. habits,"  pattern")  were p r o v i d e d  children  have d i f f i c u l t y  t o t h e knowledge t h a t  subjects  were r e q u i r e d t o  B e a r s a n d Wombats,  Major category  " f a v o r i t e food,"  because  (e.g.,  "breeding  i t h a s been d e m o n s t r a t e d  i n getting access  t h e y have  prompts  that  t o and g i v i n g  order  ( B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a ,  1982). With regard sixteen  item  to vehicle  knowledge, s u b j e c t s  multiple-choice  test.  p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s e l e c t i o n of four were r e q u i r e d  completed a  E a c h metaphor v e h i c l e possible  t o c h o o s e and t o c i r c l e  meanings.  was  Subjects  t h e c o r r e c t meaning f o r  each v e h i c l e . 3.3 O r a l The under read. See  Free  Recalls  oral free r e c a l l s  were t h e s u b j e c t s '  unprompted c o n d i t i o n s , Each  Appendix  subject's  recall  oral  retellings,  o f t h e texfcs w h i c h t h e y had j u s t was t a p e d , and l a t e r  E f o r an example o f an o r a l f r e e  transcribed.  recall  protocol.  59  3.4  Probed R e c a l l Questions Probed R e c a l l q u e s t i o n s  free  recall  task  comprehension m e a s u r e s due notes that component example,  oral  reader  are  likely  of  integrated  this  one  questions  the  p r o b e may  t h e m s e l v e s can  recorded  were a s k e d  audiotape  purpose  of  the  version  of  a text  comprehension  and  three and  and  has  must  recall  give  a  better  transformed  & Cunningham,  information  be  the  c o n t r a s t , probed  1980),  and but of  contained  another  in  probe  (Metaphoric  manipulated p a i r s .  The  was  questions  analysis.  The  t o d e t e r m i n e whether e i t h e r  or L i t e r a l )  a text d i f f e r e n t i a l l y material.  was  recall  T h e i r a n s w e r s were  transcribed for later  Factual questions  of t h e  of probed  Inferential.  version  was  of d e t a i l  in further processing  types  Factual questions  incidental  for  s t r u c t u r e of  p e r f o r m a n c e on  Incidental of  production:  level  reader  result  reader's  Incidental Fact, on  In  (Tierney  (1983)  1983).  Subjects - Fact,  Johnston  and  surface  Furthermore, the a  different  oral  i n v o l v e s a l a r g e memory  retrieval  t o which a  information  affect  two  t a p more i n f o r m a t i o n  extent  information.  (Johnston,  of a t e x t  maintained. to  different  demands.  t o what d e g r e e the be  that  these  must u n d e r s t a n d what  t e x t must  indication  stored  free r e c a l l  i n a d d i t i o n to the  found  from  task  a l s o p r o b l e m s of  r e p r o d u c e d , and  the  been  assessments r e s u l t  and  questions  i t has  to d i f f e r e n t i a l  the  original  because  were a s k e d  differentially The  p u r p o s e of  aided the  t o d e t e r m i n e whether e i t h e r aided  purpose of  t o d e t e r m i n e whether a g r e a t e r  comprehension  the  Inferential  number of v a l i d  of  the  questions  inferences  60  could  be  made from m e t a p h o r s t h a n  equivalents. presented 3.5  The  i n Appendix  Multiple-choice The  test.  This  questions addition  of  the  et  the  metaphors.  task  i s a simple  methodology  to  completed  versions the  of  the  contextual  w i t h a s e l e c t i o n of  were r e q u i r e d  t o c h o o s e and  p a r a p h r a s e of  each g i v e n  subjects'  short  e a s e of with  structured  transcribed.  f o r a copy  used because probed  that  task  the  of  use  recall  e x p l i c a t i o n in In  contrast,  of  these  task. two  appropriate  subjects  experimental the  had  target  read  The  the  statements. correct  the  test  metaphors  E a c h metaphor  literal  to c i r c l e  who  texts.  sixteen  sentences. four  of  effect.  those  of  test  was Subjects  literal  metaphor.  Interviews  debriefing  familiarity  item  recognition-of-meaning  by  presentation  supplied  The  are  subjects'  Appendix G  c o n s t i t u t e an  two  in their  Debriefing  a sixteen  comprehension.  i n v e s t i g a t e metaphor  p r o b e was  of  should  embedded  3.6  of  a l . (1979) s u g g e s t e d  metaphoric  See  metalinguistic  cognitive  in concert  consisted  metaphor p r o b e was  a s u p p l e m e n t a r y measure o f  instruments  The  for each t e x t  Probe  a u x i l i a r y measure was  metaphor p r o b e  Pearson  Metaphor  target  involved to  questions  literal  F.  d e s i g n e d as  comprehension  the  recall  multiple-choice  w h i c h was  the  probed  from t h e i r  The  interviews  reading the  and  provided  was  information  informal  understanding  t o p i c s , and  interview  an  the  i n t e r e s t i n the  recorded so  of  on  obtained  measure texts,  topics.  a u d i o t a p e and served  of  Each later  to c l a r i f y  and  61  augment  specific  research. 3.7  An  Pilot Two  suggested  The  B.C.,  measuring  students  were u s e d  was  readily  population  was  of average  test  Grade-six reasons. to the  to very level  high  Pretest,  the Metaphoric  texts,  c h o i c e Metaphor Probe.  In a d d i t i o n ,  r e a d e r s and  readers  average  read  the F a m i l i a r  and  gave o r a l  free  recalls,  answered  and  and  four  data one  with  resulted  two  items  oral  the  of  little  two  good  classroom texts,  comprehension  t h e c l a s s e s and less  Examination  t o the measuring  than  in order  the a  90  and of  the  pilot  instruments:  comprehension q u e s t i o n s  metaphor p r o b e q u e s t i o n were r e - w o r d e d ambiguity.  and i t  the m u l t i p l e -  were s t u d i e d more c l o s e l y ,  i n four a l t e r a t i o n s  the  Knowledge  eliciting  Language E d u c a t o r s .  p r e t e s t q u e s t i o n , two  Second,  w o u l d be  the o r a l  were examined, and  discussed  pilot  individuals, by  grade-  the U n f a m i l i a r metaphoric  individuals  response  the  completed  R e s p o n s e s t o t h e m e a s u r e s by  correct  r a t h e r than  the P r i o r  school  experimental  reading a b i l i t y  questions.  percent  boys'  researcher.  selected  teachers,  the  First,  difference  Both c l a s s e s completed  two  H.  Instruments  consequence. read  i n Appendix  to p i l o t  available  assumed t h a t t h e g r a d e  further  at a p r i v a t e  f o r two  population  for  students  instruments.  were u s e d  areas  i s presented  Measuring  c l a s s e s of g r a d e - s i x  t e x t s and  was  and  interview schedule  T e s t i n g Of  in Vancouver,  seven  findings  and  one  to eliminate  62  4.  THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE The  the  s u b j e c t s were  experimentation  both  described,  students  C.T.B.S. r e a d i n g  either  The  total  minutes.  from the to  s c o r e s and a l t e r n a t e l y  testing  time  assigned  to read  a l s o randomly a s s i g n e d  to  i n order  effect.  d i r e c t i o n s were  by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r  given  f o r e a c h s u b j e c t was  The e x p e r i m e n t a l  study.  v e r s i o n s o f t h e two  tested individually  Uniform  in a  their  the F a m i l i a r or the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t f i r s t  a c l o s e d room.  of t h e  Then, a s p r e v i o u s l y  according  E a c h s u b j e c t was  s u b j e c t was  to  knowledge o f  were measured  were e x c l u d e d  a v o i d a p o s s i b l e passage order Each  week p r i o r  knowledge  Pretest.  ranked  One  population's  i n the t e x t s ,  or the L i t e r a l  texts.  1983.  and t h e i r  Knowledge  were  subtest  the Metaphoric  experimental  to  Prior  a number of s t u d e n t s  remaining  either  texts,  of the metaphors used  group a d m i n i s t e r e d  read  p e r i o d , the e n t i r e  t h e t o p i c s of t h e two  vehicles  The  tested in April,  p e r i o d was  almost  t o each  between  in  subject.  25 and  35  t h r e e weeks i n  duration. The in  s u b j e c t s proceeded  the order  procedure  listed  below.  i s indicated  in  through  t h e m a t e r i a l s and  The a p p r o x i m a t e t i m e  spent  measures on  each  parentheses.  O r i e n t a t i o n t o t a s k and t e s t e r S i l e n t r e a d i n g of t h e f i r s t t e x t Oral free r e c a l l O r a l probed r e c a l l questions M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor p r o b e - i f a p p l i c a b l e Debriefing interview Short break R e o r i e n t a t i o n to task S i l e n t r e a d i n g of t h e s e c o n d t e x t Oral free r e c a l l  (3 (2 (3 (2 (3 (2 (2 (1 (2 (3  mins.) mins.) mins.) mins.) mins.) mins.) mins.) min.) mins.) mins.)  63  O r a l probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor p r o b e F i n a l debriefing interview  Total 5.  THE  SCORING OF  E a c h of this  study  Recall  five  measuring  I n t e r v i e w s ) was  Familiar  knowledge of  the  topic,  vehicles  the  "Unfamiliar" written. test  i n which the  was  subjects Pretest  t o be  who  or  Probed  and  below.  two  was  responses  i n the  of  deemed  to  and  "Familiar"  to  for a  multiple-choice  vehicles A  sixteen  experimental of  were not  and  a t t r i b u t e s were the  the  the  criteria  data  subjects'  attributes written  were a n a l y z e d .  l e a s t twelve  and  a t t r i b u t e s were w r i t t e n ,  m e a n i n g s of  The  First,  topic,  t o p i c s were a n a l y z e d ,  appropriate topic  meet t h e  Unfamiliar  metaphors.  the  selected,  included  d i d not  for  for this test:  fewer a p p r o p r i a t e  correct  were e x c l u d e d .  analysis.  A  subjects'  answer c o r r e c t l y a t she  the  number o f  i f three  m e t a p h o r s were t o be  or  scores  or more a p p r o p r i a t e  Second,  Free R e c a l l s ,  described  knowledge of  of  e a c h t o p i c were a s s i g n e d . i f five  as  three  statements concerning  subject  mins.  Pretest.  knowledge of  denoting  Oral  Metaphor Probes,  scored  S u b j e c t s were a s s i g n e d  scores  30  instruments administered  ( P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t s ,  P r i o r Knowledge  written  t e s t i n g time;  mins.) mins.) mins.)  DATA.  Questions, Multiple-Choice  Debriefing 5.1  the  (2 (3 (2  i f applicable  the used  of  the  target  subject  had  vehicles  if  sample. Prior for  to he  Those  Knowledge further  64  5.2  Oral  Free  Scoring steps: the  (a)  recall  units, 5.2.1  Recalls. the  (c)  text by  idea  that  template that  stated  by  on  the  the  metaphoric  total  possible  placed.  Given  metaphoric  possible  the  text  places  f o r the  Unfamiliar  text  The  four  Familiar (i.e.,  of  seemed t o c o n v e y a text  procedure,  the base  similar  employed  McConkie  of  397  are  there  the  to  by  (1975)  two  a  and  unit  words.  total  (6 X  measured  f o r the  four  For  example,  Thus,  there  boundary c o u l d  six possible the  experimental  u n i t s was  agreements.  idea  Thus,  pairwise  possible  397).  were 378  be  S i m i l a r l y for  words, and  2268  L a n g u a g e E d u c a t o r s a g r e e d on  text 97.8  list  agreements  contained  text;  into a  Language e d u c a t o r s w o r k i n g .  f o r a g r e e e m e n t were 2382 Unfamiliar  these  were  subsequently  possible  there  analyzing  texts  example of  This  actual  where an  judges,  agreements.  placements  An  i d e n t i f y i n g idea  f o r each boundary.  opportunities the  of  number o f  four  that  versions  number of  Familiar  were 397  agreements  metaphoric  total  each text  text.  four  three  protocol.  experimental  phrases  by  (b)  classifying  i n c l u d i n g Meyer and  reliability  d i v i d i n g the  j u d g e s by  the  (1965) and  completed  involved  Template  i n A p p e n d i x D.  researchers,  The  Base  i n the  Johnson  ( 1 9 7 6 ) , was  texts.  and  to each  of  i s , words o r  ideas  independently  Text  recalls  base templates,  units  scores  The  i s presented  number of  the  Of  idea  free  subjectively analyzing  developed  Arter  into  oral  text  base t e m p l a t e s  constructed  individual  the  assigning  Construction  units,  from the  constructing protocols  and  The  by  data  (i.e.,  95  p e r c e n t ) and  p e r c e n t ) g i v i n g an  2217  overall  2263 for  65  agreement  o f 96.4 p e r c e n t  identifying  among f o u r  the idea u n i t s  independent  f o r the study.  placed  i n a l l p o s i t i o n s where a t l e a s t  agreed  that  a boundary  should  exist.  judges i n  The b o u n d a r i e s  three  of the four  The h i g h  94 p e r c e n t  identifying and  the idea  McConkie  identifying  hierarchy  5.2.2 A n a l y s i s  reflecting  p r o t o c o l was a n a l y z e d  t h e same manner t h a t  text  base t e m p l a t e s .  compared w i t h unit Drum, idea  was employed  The l i s t  the appropriate  classified 1978).  idea  semantically  of  inappropriate  information  did idea  external  units containing  literal  equivalent  semantically  idea  ideas  information.  i n exact  statements.  units of t h e then  and e a c h (adapted  idea from  restatements of  idea u n i t s r e c a l l e d .  e i t h e r t h e metaphor  equivalent  of idea  w h i c h were n o t e x a c t  to the text or general  statements  text.  u n i t s was  recombinations of text  n o t c o n v e y any s p e c i f i c  into a  f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n  u n i t s were e x a c t  r e s t a t e m e n t s , minus any t a r g e t u n i t s were  into a l i s t  base t e m p l a t e ,  correct  judges  Protocols  of r e c a l l e d text  Meyer  a g r e e m e n t among  as I n c i d e n t a l , Evoked, or T a r g e t  Incidental  units plus  t e x t , while  the s t r u c t u r e of the given Of The  (1976)  judges i n  u n i t s and p l a c i n g them  And C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Each r e c a l l in  91.5 p e r c e n t  idea  Arter  independent  u n i t s of her metaphoric  (1975) o b t a i n e d  who were b o t h logical  agreement among f o u r  judges  p e r c e n t a g e of  agreement among t h e e d u c a t o r s was n o t u n e x p e c t e d . obtained  were  Evoked  ideas,  additions  statements  Target targets  idea  which  u n i t s were  or t h e i r  restatements or  idea  66  5.2.3  S c o r i n g The Raw  s c o r e s were a s s i g n e d  Incidental, E f o r an rater  E v o k e d and  reliability  an  agreement  5.3  Probed R e c a l l Each  scores  six  Inferential  to  f o r e a c h of  was  free  recall  independent  Appendix  protocol.  judges,  Inter-  Language  sample o f p r o t o c o l s was c a l c u l a t e d ,  percent  the  questions  was  the  obtained.  probed  recall  r e c o r d i n g and  six Fact,  reliability  Language E d u c a t o r s ,  p r o t o c o l s was  questions  analyzed.  used  in  between  an  and  the  two  for a ten  c a l c u l a t e d , and  were  Correct  six Incidental Fact,  were t a b u l a t e d and  Interrater  judges,  probe r e c a l l  percent  sample  agreement  of  96  obtained.  M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor  Probes.  s c o r e s were t a b u l a t e d f o r s u b j e c t s ' c o r r e c t  the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor p a r a p h r a s e  were not the  See  Questions.  of d a t a .  independent  Raw  idea u n i t s present.  from the a u d i o - t a p e  raw  5.4  the  s u b j e c t s ' answers t o  transcribed  percent  of 91.9  to each p r o t o c o l f o r  oral  between two  f o r a ten p e r c e n t  and  analysis  Target  example of a s c o r e d  Educators,  of  Protocols  tests.  i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s because the  subjects' individual  appear t o p r o v i d e however, d e s c r i b e d  any  comprehension  additional  i n the  f i n d i n g s of  the  These  results  s c o r e s , and  information.  responses  The  study.  did  data  reflected not  results  are,  67  5.5 D e b r i e f i n g  Interviews.  Transcriptions informal, 6.  introspective  THE ANALYSIS The  (a)  Oral  of s u b j e c t s '  data  Free R e c a l l  scores  (Factual,  was a n a l y z e d  with a covariate, with  factor  within-subjects C.T.B.S.  were t e s t e d  the  (2) X  was V e r s i o n  (2) X  ANOVAs.  level.  and  (3) e x t e n d e d factor.  and P r o b e d  of variance  factorial  or L i t e r a l )  (Familiar  Oral  i n a one-way  Free R e c a l l  and  Unfamiliar).  by T o p i c  cell.  There  Results  and P r o b e d R e c a l l ,  (MANOVA) t o c o r r o b o r a t e a n d c l a r i f y  were  E a c h s e t of  fixed effects multivariate  were t e s t e d  design  and t h e  s c o r e s were t h e c o v a r i a t e .  i n each V e r s i o n  (ANOVA)  The b e t w e e n -  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  Results  Inferential).  Free R e c a l l  (Metaphoric  was T o p i c  subtest  dependent v a r i a b l e s ,  variance  Factual,  Oral  variables:  and E v o k e d ) a n d (b)  i n a separate a n a l y s i s  in a  subjects  analyzed  was made.  of dependent  Target,  Incidental  variables,  factor  reading  twenty-three  of  on two s e t s  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s on t h e t h i r d  subjects  also  of the information  (Incidental,  Each s e t of dependent Recall,  evaluation  were r e a d , a n d an  OF DATA  yielded  Probed R e c a l l  interviews  was  analysis  the f i n d i n g s of  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .05  68  IV. The  p u r p o s e of  metaphor on texts  with  dependent  ANALYSIS AND  t h i s s t u d y was  RESULTS t o examine t h e  seventh-grade students' f a m i l i a r and  variables  unfamiliar  comprehension topics.  were a n a l y z e d - - o n e  Two  set  ( I n c i d e n t a l , E v o k e d and  T a r g e t ) and  Recalls  (Fact,  and  for  each of  the  Fact,  s i x dependent  proportional  scores  b e c a u s e of  for  i n the  Oral  example,  idea  units  and  Incidental  Probed R e c a l l s three  Free R e c a l l s  there  t o be  the  scores  arcsine  stabilize  the  relationship  between t h e  Each set  t o be  transformation and  of  transformed (Winer,  the  in a  extended  factorial  with  factor.  The  analyses.  scores,  proved  = 8.58,  2  <  -  Adjusted c e l l  t o be  0 5  '  a  n  d  The  Target  Fact  any  in order  significant: Probed R e c a l l  means were t h e r e f o r e  - F used  The  by  means  to  variances.  program  Oral  the  systematic  Free R e c a l l  3(Dependent  covariate,  in and  into radians  (Dixon,  CTBS R e a d i n g Free R e c a l l (1,43) = i n the  of  and variance  Variables)  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s on  BMDP:2V.7 s t a t i s t i c a l  f o r the  involved:  Unfamiliar  separate a n a l y s i s  2(Topic) X  used  into  f o r each t e x t .  1971)  to preclude  (ANOVA) i n a 2 ( V e r s i o n ) X design  Probed  scores  were e i g h t  six Incidental  answered  means and  analyzed  Raw  sixty-four  dependent v a r i a b l e s , O r a l  P r o b e d R e c a l l , was  from  r e c a l l e d from e a c h t e x t , and  were t h e n  variances  set  Free  were t r a n s f o r m e d  there  or  were s i x F a c t ,  I n f e r e n t i a l questions  proportional of  units  of  d i f f e r e n t metrics  seventy-one F a m i l i a r  idea  one  of  expository  sets  Inferential).  variables the  of  from O r a l  Recalls  Incidental  effects  the  third  1983)  was  Subtest - F  (1,43)  11.81, p_ <  .05.  interpretation  of  69  results.  The b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s  Literal)  and t h e w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s  Unfamiliar). by  Topic  level.  was  program  i n a one-way  analyses,  (Metaphoric  significance  a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  further  analyses  t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e factor  CTBS R e a d i n g  Results  was factor  Subtest subjects in  were t e s t e d f o r  Results  o f t h e MANOVAs on t h e  two s e t s o f d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s a r e p r e s e n t e d  i n Tables  V to X  i n A p p e n d i x I_. s e t s o f r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d i n t h e  set d e a l i n g with  comprehension  the e f f e c t s  of Metaphor  of t e x t , and t h e o t h e r  the comprehension  findings  t h e UBC:SPSS  T h e r e were t w e n t y - t h r e e  by T o p i c  on  effects  and t h e w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s  ( F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r ) .  cell.  R e c a l l and  the between-subjects  each V e r s i o n  one  Version  a t t h e .05  fixed  These  and c l a r i f y  or L i t e r a l )  were t h e c o v a r i a t e .  Two  i n each  (MANOVA) u s i n g  ( L a i , 1983).  to corroborate  For both  inclusive  ( F a m i l i a r and  I I I and IV i n A p p e n d i x I .  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  were c o n d u c t e d  scores  in Tables  also analyzed  statistical  was T o p i c  subjects  s e t of d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , O r a l F r e e  multivariate  Version  was T o p i c  or  o f t h e ANOVAs on t h e two s e t s o f d e p e n d e n t  are presented  Probed R e c a l l ,  ANOVAs.  factor  (Metaphoric  R e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e  Results  Each  was V e r s i o n  T h e r e were t w e n t y - t h r e e  cell.  variables  MANOVA  factor  of the study  of M e t a p h o r i c  with  texts.  a r e r e p o r t e d under  1.  Effect  o f Metaphor  2.  Effect  of Topic  on M e t a p h o r i c  study—  on t h e  the e f f e c t s  of Topic  A c c o r d i n g l y , the the f o l l o w i n g  Texts  headings:  70  1.  EFFECT OF METAPHOR The  there  null  will  hypothesis  the l i t e r a l  equivalents  are  The t h r e e  study  students'  metaphors and t h e i r  h y p o t h e s e s were f o r m u l a t e d Recall.  in this  be no d i f f e r e n c e between  texts containing containing  examined  i s as f o l l o w s :  comprehension of  comprehension  of t e x t s  of t h e metaphors.  f o rOral  null  hypotheses  free  recall  Specific  F r e e R e c a l l and f o r Probed relative  to Oral  Free  Recall  as f o l l o w s : (1)  Students'  Metaphoric  texts  and t h e i r  of Target  recall  text  information  from L i t e r a l  from  t e x t s a r e not  significantly different. (2)  Students'  from M e t a p h o r i c not  free  recall  of I n c i d e n t a l  t e x t s and t h e i r  recall  text  information  from L i t e r a l  texts are  significantly different. (3)  recall  The number o f E v o k e d  of Metaphoric  Literal The  texts  texts  present  a n d t h e number  i n students' in their  free  r e c a l l of  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  ANOVA o f t h e t h r e e  Incidental  ideas  Oral  and Evoked) r e v e a l e d  Free R e c a l l v a r i a b l e s no s i g n i f i c a n t  Version  (Metaphoric  or L i t e r a l ) ,  Results  o f t h e ANOVA a r e p r e s e n t e d  Similar  f i n d i n g s were n o t e d  i n Table  significant  main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n  variables.  These  in Appendix  I_.  between  students'  Incidental  and Evoked  idea  i n w h i c h no  i n T a b l e s V, VI a n d V I I  1, 2 a n d 3 r e g a r d i n g t h e  Oral  units  I I I i n A p p e n d i x J_.  was f o u n d on any o f t h e  r e s u l t s are presented  difference  main e f f e c t f o r  F (1,43) = 1.07, p > .05.  i n t h e MANOVA  N u l l hypotheses  (Target,  Free R e c a l l of from t e x t s  Target,  containing  metaphors  71  and  from t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g  m e t a p h o r s were The  was  not  literal  in regard  with caution.  statistically  to Target Although  significant,  on  .05,  which  Target  indicates that  recall  r e s u l t s are discussed  presented  formulated.  texts  (5)  not  (6) texts  not  and  the  was  however, were  a  Topic,  had  Topic  on  of  the  Metaphoric to  Version  significant T =  -3.17930,  different effects  i n Appendix  relating  text.  These  I_, and  are  on  Texts.  P r o b e d R e c a l l were  also  follows: recall  of  Factual  t e x t s and  recall  from M e t a p h o r i c  The  the  their  target  text  recall  from  Literal  significantly different.  Students' probed  are  and  Version  Topic  from M e t a p h o r i c  information texts  as  Students' probed  are  on  hypotheses  They a r e  information  of  main e f f e c t f o r  there  i n T a b l e VII  under E f f e c t of  Three n u l l  (4)  depending  recall,  the  two-way i n t e r a c t i o n between V e r s i o n p_ <  equivalents  accepted.  findings  interpreted  the  of  Incidental Factual  t e x t s and  their  recall  text  from  Literal  significantly different. number of  the  number  Inferences  from t a r g e t s  from  targets  in L i t e r a l  in Metaphoric  t e x t s are  not  significantly different. The  ANOVA of  significant  the  three  Probed R e c a l l  main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n ,  These r e s u l t s are  presented  in Table  revealed  (1,43) = 0.98,  IV  p_ >  i n A p p e n d i x I_.  the  MANOVA  revealed  Version  any  of  variables.  These r e s u l t s are  presented  i n Appendix  I_.  5 and  Tables VIII,  the  IX and  X  no  .05.  Similarly, on  no  F  variables  significant  main e f f e c t f o r  H y p o t h e s e s 4,  6  in  72  regarding  the  Factual, texts  difference  Incidental  containing  equivalents The  of  between s t u d e n t s '  Factual  m e t a p h o r s and  the  findings  in regard  a  from t e x t s  for Version  was  to  containing  Incidental  Factual Although  statistically  effects  on  <  .05,  Incidental  the  text.  and  are  2.  EFFECT OF  which  indicates  Factual  These r e s u l t s are  discussed  This  TOPIC ON  difference  between  Metaphoric  text  Metaphoric  text.  three n u l l  that  Probed  Recall,  presented  in Table  Topic  the  main  on  and  Version  d e p e n d i n g on  that  had the  IX  was  Topic, different Topic  of  i n A p p e n d i x I_  Metaphoric  t h e r e w o u l d be  students' comprehension  and  literal  Texts.  METAPHORIC TEXTS  study proposed  Free R e c a l l ,  recall  under E f f e c t of  the  s i g n i f i c a n t , there  s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n between V e r s i o n  T = 2.13237, p  from  accepted.  with c a u t i o n .  not  of  I n f e r e n t i a l information  m e t a p h o r s were  however, were i n t e r p r e t e d effect  and  Probed R e c a l l  t h e i r comprehension  of  no s i g n i f i c a n t  of  the  the  Familiar  Unfami 1 i a r  S p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s were f o r m u l a t e d  f o r Probed R e c a l l  and  for  hypotheses r e l a t i v e to O r a l  the  for  Metaphor Probe.  Free R e c a l l  are  Oral The  as  follows: (1) Familiar  Students' Metaphoric  Metaphoric (2)  text  Students'  from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric (3)  are  free text not free  Metaphoric  text  are  Students'  not free  recall and  of  Target  text  their recall  information  from  from  Unfamiliar  significantly different. recall text  of and  Incidental their  text  recall  from  information Unfamiliar  significantly different. recall  of  Evoked  idea  units  from  73  Familiar  Metaphoric  Metaphoric The a  t e x t and t h e i r  recall  text a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  ANOVA o f t h e t h r e e O r a l F r e e  significant  interaction  different. Recall  interaction  was c o m p l i c a t e d  interaction  amongst V e r s i o n , T o p i c  i n Appendix  implicated  I_.  Target  MANOVA  interaction T  recall  a s t h e main  (mean i n r a d i a n s  than  these  i n Table  f i n d i n g s and variable  showed t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t  higher  Students on T a r g e t  = 1.134) t h a n  recall  recall,  the Metaphoric  on t h e U n f a m i l i a r t e x t  who r e a d  (mean i n  the L i t e r a l  (mean i n r a d i a n s  (mean i n r a d i a n s = 1.214).  interaction  between V e r s i o n and T o p i c  illustrated  i n Figure  1 below..  on T a r g e t  The s i g n i f i c a n c e  versions  = 0.923) The  recall i s of the  difference  between t h e two means, F a m i l i a r M e t a p h o r i c a n d  Unfamiliar  Metaphoric,  method  for correlated  significantly (22,  was c a l c u l a t e d samples  different  using the d i f f e r e n c e  (Ferguson,  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  .05) = 2.074; c a l c u l a t e d  1 was n o t a c c e p t e d .  (see  two-way  on t h e F a m i l i a r t e x t  l o w e r on t h e U n f a m i l i a r t e x t  on t h e F a m i l i a r t e x t  on T a r g e t  who r e a d  r a d i a n s = 0.860), whereas s t u d e n t s scored  variables,  are presented  interaction  between V e r s i o n and T o p i c  scored  two-way  I_ ) .  = -3.17930, p < .05.  versions  These r e s u l t s  (1,44)  three-way  and t h e dependent  The MANOVA c o r r o b o r a t e d  T a b l e V I I i n Appendix The  significant  by a s i g n i f i c a n t  (2,88) = 8.67, p < .05.  III  variables revealed  between V e r s i o n a n d T o p i c , F  = 6.44, p < » 0 5 . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s  F  from U n f a m i l i a r  value  1981).  The means were  (critical  value  of t  o f t = 8.199) a n d H y p o t h e s i s  74  For  Evoked  significant Metaphoric results  recall  and  differences texts  Incidental  between  the F a m i l i a r  , and H y p o t h e s e s  are presented  recall  i n T a b l e s VI  2 and  there and  were  the  and V I I  i n A p p e n d i x I_.  1.3 EH  1.2  1.214 1.134 Unfamiliar  1.1 1.0 0.9  0.923 0.860 Familiar  0.8 Literal  Unfamiliar  3 were a c c e p t e d .  RADIANS  to  no  Metaphoric VERSION  Figure 1 Significant Interaction Between Version and Topic on Target Oral Free Recall  These  75  Three also  specific  formulated. (4)  r e l a t i n g t o Probed R e c a l l  were  They a r e a s f o l l o w s :  Students'  information  hypotheses  probed  recall  from t h e F a m i l i a r  from t h e U n f a m i l i a r  of F a c t u a l  Metaphoric  Metaphoric  text  target  text  text  and t h e i r  recall  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different. (5)  Students'  information  probed  recall  from the F a m i l i a r  from t h e U n f a m i l i a r  of I n c i d e n t a l  Metaphoric  Metaphoric  text  text  Factual  text  and t h e i r  recall  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different. (6)  The number o f I n f e r e n c e s  from t a r g e t s  Metaphoric  texts  a n d t h e number  Metaphoric  texts  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  It of  i s t o be n o t e d  although Topic  i n the Unfamiliar  was n o t a v a r i a b l e  i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s t u d y , a main e f f e c t f o r T o p i c  Recall  m e a s u r e s was r e v e a l e d  p < .05. Appendix on  Results I_.  The  there  scored  topic  being  higher  cells  Metaphoric  Unfamiliar  Literal  The  ANOVA a l s o  between T o p i c < .05.  This  on t h e F a m i l i a r  f o r Probed R e c a l l  Familiar  = 5.26; F a m i l i a r  Metaphoric Literal  IV i n  topic  than  and t h e L i t e r a l  no i n t e r a c t i o n between T o p i c  were a s f o l l o w s :  Unfamiliar  i n Table  f o r both the Metaphoric  sum o f t h e means i n r a d i a n s  Topic  on t h e P r o b e d  by t h e ANOVA, F (1,44) = 10.19,  o f t h e ANOVA a r e p r e s e n t e d  Students  the Unfamiliar  versions,  £  that,  from t a r g e t s  i n the F a m i l i a r  and V e r s i o n . i n Version  by  = 6.537,  = 6.40,  = 6.04. revealed  a s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n  and t h e dependent  v a r i a b l e s , F (2,88) = 5.04,  f i n d i n g was c o r r o b o r a t e d  and c l a r i f i e d  by t h e  76  MANOVA which  i m p l i c a t e d I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l and I n f e r e n t i a l  P r o b e d R e c a l l a s t h e measures r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e T o p i c  effect.  These r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s V I I I , I X and X i n A p p e n d i x I.  The r e s u l t s o f t h e MANOVA r e v e a l e d t h a t f o r I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l , t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t  two-way  i n t e r a c t i o n between T o p i c and V e r s i o n , T = 2.13237, p < .05, i n a d d i t i o n t o a main e f f e c t f o r T o p i c , T = 2.04847, p_ < .05. S t u d e n t s who r e a d t h e M e t a p h o r i c v e r s i o n s s c o r e d  significantly  l o w e r on t h e U n f a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n r a d i a n s = 1.833) than on t h e F a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n r a d i a n s = 2.290), thus H y p o t h e s i s 5 was n o t a c c e p t e d .  C e l l means and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between  V e r s i o n and T o p i c a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2 below.  RADIANS  Literal  Metaphoric VERSION Figure 2  Significant Interaction Between Version and Topic on Incidental Fact Probe Recall  77 The  r e s u l t s o f the MANOVA r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e was no  significant  i n t e r a c t i o n between T o p i c and V e r s i o n f o r e i t h e r  F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l o r f o r I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l . F o r I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l , however, means f o r b o t h t h e M e t a p h o r i c and t h e L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r f o r the F a m i 1 i a r t e x t than f o r t h e U n f a m i l i a r t e x t , due t o t h e main e f f e c t  f o r T o p i c on t h i s measure, T = 3.15664, p_ < .05.  On  t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , H y p o t h e s i s 4 was a c c e p t e d w h i l e H y p o t h e s i s 6 was not a c c e p t e d .  C e l l means f o r t h e P r o b e d  measures a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e I I below.  Table II Topic Means for Metaphoric Texts on Probed Recall Measures  Measure  Topic Familiar  Fact Incidental Fact Inferential * p_<.05  1.723 0  O  2  *  Q n 2 9 0  2.524  T-Value  Sig. of T  Unfamiliar 1.770  .17117  .864  1.833  2.04847  .044*  1.657  3.15664  .002*  Recall  78  One  hypothesis  P r o b e was a l s o (7)  formulated.  Students'  Metaphor T a r g e t s recognition  r e l a t i n g to the multiple-choice I t i s as follows:  recognition  of the c o r r e c t  from t h e F a m i l i a r  of those  Metaphor  Metaphoric  from t h e U n f a m i l i a r  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of text  Metaphoric  and t h e i r text  a r e not  significantly different. Data or  from  t h e M e t a p h o r P r o b e were n o t i n c l u d e d  t h e MANOVA.  Unfamiliar using  the procedure  1981).  rejected.  3.  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS  3.1  Finding  Regarding  (critical  of t = 5.23).  value  of t  Hypothesis 7  between  and t h e L i t e r a l  texts  students' on a n y o f  F r e e R e c a l l m e a s u r e s o r on any o f t h e P r o b e d  measures.  Findings (1)  R e g a r d i n g The E f f e c t Of T o p i c  Students' Oral  significantly for  (Ferguson,  The E f f e c t Of M e t a p h o r  of the Metaphoric  Oral  compared  = 6.65) were  T h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  comprehension  Recall  samples  = 6.39, U n f a m i l i a r  .05) = 2.074; c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e  three  however, were  d i f f e r e n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l  was  3.2  questions,  and t h e  for c a l c u l a t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the  The means ( F a m i l i a r  (1)  to the Familiar  between two means f o r c o r r e l a t e d  significantly  the  responses  multiple-choice  difference  (22,  Students'  i n t h e ANOVA  greater  Free R e c a l l  (2)  Students'  Metaphor T a r g e t s  of Target  for the Unfamiliar  the FamiH-ar-Metaphoric  On M e t a p h o r i c idea  Metaphoric  Texts  u n i t s was text  than  text.  recognition  of the c o r r e c t  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  greater  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of  for the Unfamiliar  79  Metaphoric  text  than  (3) S t u d e n t s ' information Metaphoric  was text  (4) T h e r e Familiar  and  Free R e c a l l of  Evoked  idea  Probed  Recall  significantly than  of  were no  of I n c i d e n t a l  g r e a t e r f o r the  significant  Incidental units  Metaphoric  f o r the U n f a m i l i a r  the U n f a m i l i a r  idea  units.  f o r the F a m i l i a r  and  Factual Familiar  Metaphoric  differences  Metaphoric  text.  texts  text.  between  on:  the  students'  idea  units,  students' Oral  their  Probed  Recall  Free  of F a c t u a l  Oral  Recall  target  80  V. In  this  discussed  chapter  the f i n d i n g s  and e v a l u a t e d  educational study  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS reported  and p o s s i b l e  4 are  implications for  practice are presented.  are reported  i n Chapter  C o n c l u s i o n s drawn  and i m p l i c a t i o n s  for further  from t h e  research are  proposed. The about  present  (1)  text,  texts  a difference  containing  (2)  m e t a p h o r s and t h e i r  the l i t e r a l  Is there  between c h i l d r e n ' s  equivalents  a difference  m e t a p h o r i c . t e x t s on a f a m i l i a r  of  metaphoric  texts  comprehension  comprehension  of t e x t s  of the metaphors?  between c h i l d r e n ' s  of  topic  on an u n f a m i l i a r  and t h e i r  comprehension comprehension  topic?  THE EFFECT OF METAPHOR ON COMPREHENSION With  between and  comprehension of  namely:  Is there  containing  1.  t o answer two q u e s t i o n s  t h e e f f e c t s o f metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s  expository  of  s t u d y was d e s i g n e d  regard  to the f i r s t  students' comprehension  their  comprehension  equivalents  recall.  free  recall  A l l sixnull  of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s  no d i f f e r e n c e  of t e x t s  of t e x t s  of the metaphors.  measures of o r a l probed  question,  containing  containing  This  was t r u e  metaphors  the l i t e r a l f o r the three  and f o r t h e t h r e e  measures of  hypotheses concerning  comprehension  was f o u n d  of t e x t  the e f f e c t s  were  thus  accepted. The  findings  of the p r e s e n t  previous  research  (Arter,  Arter  f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t  1 976;  study  support  the f i n d i n g s of  a n d P e a r s o n e t a l _ . , 1979).  difference  between h e r  sixth-grade  81  students'  comprehension  comprehension ability recall text  of a metaphoric  o f an e q u i v a l e n t  s t u d e n t s who p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r questions  about  that  suggested  low v e r b a l  study  that  this  ability  that  the metaphors  the  material  likely  ability  difference  at the t h i r d  comprehension  i n the metaphoric  verbal  (1979), u s i n g  of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g  text.  due t o t h e f a c t  ability  further  comprehension.)  of t e x t s  probed  t o have l e s s e f f e c t i v e  and s i x t h - g r a d e  i n comprehension  f o r h e r low-  f o r the l i t e r a l  encouraged  their  R a p h a e l , T e P a s k e and H y s e r low  except  f i n d i n g was p r o b a b l y  students tend  thus h e l p i n g  and t h e i r  on m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  of q u e s t i o n s  s t r a t e g i e s t h a n m i d d l e and h i g h  and  text  incidental material  t h a n on t h e same k i n d  (Arter  literal  text  students  processing  of  Pearson,  subjects levels,  containing  of h i g h and f o u n d no  metaphors and  the equivalent  literal  phrases. The of  f i n d i n g that  expository  metaphoric  t e x t may  versions  metaphor d i d n o t a f f e c t s t u d e n t s '  be i n t e r p r e t e d a s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e  were a t l e a s t a s c o m p r e h e n s i b l e  memorable a s t h e l i t e r a l  versions.  the  (1976) a n d W i n k e l j o h a n n  claims  metaphoric  by Cunningham  The f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t  O r t o n y e t a l . (1978) and B a l d w i n difficulty of the  This  l a n g u a g e makes f o r d i f f i c u l t y  comprehension.  of p r o c e s s i n g  (1979)  that  with  t h e c l a i m s of  e t a l . (1982) t h a t t h e  metaphoric  t h e metaphor.  to  i n reading  language  i s not a  function  knowledge o f  v e h i c l e o f t h e metaphor a n d upon t h e r e l a t e d n e s s surrounding  and a s  finding i s contrary  n o n - l i t e r a l n e s s b u t depends upon t h e s u b j e c t s '  context  recall  of t h e  82  These c l a i m s  carry  already  been a d d r e s s e d  suggest  that  knowledge, r a t h e r  by B a l d w i n  than  e d u c a t o r s may b e s t  which  in increasing forms.  i n helping  students'  their abilities  be c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e s i g n i n g vocabulary,  to analyze that  curriculum  to develop t h e i r  knowledge o f t h e w o r l d a n d c u l t u r a l c o n v e n t i o n s , a n d t o their  experiences with  designing 2.  language and l i t e r a t u r e ,  d i r e c t metaphor c o m p r e h e n s i o n  there  training  second q u e s t i o n  a difference  examined  between c h i l d r e n ' s  with  on a f a m i l i a r t o p i c  metaphoric  texts  on an u n f a m i l i a r  topic?  students'  of the t a r g e t  recall  measures,  significantly  better  was f o r t h e t e x t target  unfamiliar  recall  f o r the text  text  multiple-choice correct  than  f o r the f a m i l i a r  free  topic  Material  better  other  topic.  than  f o r the  of the u n f a m i l i a r  metaphor p r o b e .  t e s t of students'  on t h e u n f a m i l i a r  than  text.  i n favour  on t h e m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e written  Is  m e t a p h o r s was  on t h e u n f a m i l i a r  ability  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the metaphors,  significantly familiar  On t h e o r a l  m e t a p h o r s , however, was n o t r e c a l l e d b e t t e r text  was:  and t h e i r comprehension of  on t h e f a m i l i a r t o p i c .  T h e r e was a s i m i l a r r e s u l t metaphoric  study  comprehension of  texts  the  than  activities.  i n the present  metaphoric  the  rather  increase  THE EFFECT OF TOPIC ON COMPREHENSION OF METAPHORIC TEXTS The  it  They  children  Thus i s w o u l d a p p e a r  to develop students'  have  e_t a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  i n t e x t may l i e i n i n c r e a s i n g  i n t e r p r e t language  experiences  in part  implications  instructional effectiveness  comprehend metaphor  and  pedagogical  topic  to  students than  In t h i s recognize performed  on t h e  83  On t h e p r o b e d effect text  for topic  than  familiar of  the  f o r the u n f a m i l i a r . topic  suggests  text  not  on t h e i r  of a t e x t  One  just  overall  texts  were h i g h e r  In  topic  results  free  text  i n the present  recall  these measures,  in  reflect  but p r e -  study,  topic,  i n Table  f o r the f a m i l i a r  be n o t e d ,  recall  reflecting  unfamiliar  I I on page 83. unfamiliar  on two m e a s u r e s :  the  multiple-  test).  i n v o l v e d the target  the target  than  f o r the f a c t u a l  f o r the  text  topic  and t h e  (a r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g  i t will  scores f o r  thus  m e t a p h o r s , and t h e  q u e s t i o n s on t h e p r o b e d  difference  Furthermore,  on t h e f a m i l i a r  s c o r e s were h i g h e r  a t h i r d measure i n v o l v i n g  factual  may  q u e s t i o n s on t h e p r o b e d  f o r the f a m i l i a r  of t h e t a r g e t  c h o i c e metaphor p r o b e  on  knows much  inevitably  In c o n t r a s t , s c o r e s  are presented  then, than  partly  Comprehension  the text,  on t h e u n f a m i l i a r  effect.  These r e s u l t s  metaphoric  1977; and R u m e l h a r t ,  knows l i t t l e .  f o r the text  were no d i f f e r e n t  summary,  i n f l u e n t i a l theory  on w h i c h a r e a d e r  read,  of the  well.  the metaphoric  test  i n favour  knowledge.  on a t o p i c  on w h i c h a r e a d e r  were f o r t h e t e x t  texts.  For  prior  main  f o r the f a m i l i a r  r e a d e r s c o n s t r u c t meanings b a s e d  knowledge a s  questions  oral  effect  t h e i n f e r e n t i a l and t h e i n c i d e n t a l  recall  the  A topic  o n l y what s u b j e c t s have l e a r n e d from  For  they  score  (e.g., Anderson,  t o be b e t t e r  of r e c a l l  existing  both  that  on a t o p i c  tests  overall  might have been e x p e c t e d .  and p a r t l y  expected  than  m e a s u r e s , t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t  with a higher  r e a d i n g comprehension  1980)  be  recall  Both metaphors.  m e t a p h o r s , namely t h e  test,  between s t u d e n t s ' c o m p r e h e n s i o n  t h e r e was no  of the f a m i l i a r  84  metaphoric  text  and  metaphoric  text.  t h e i r comprehension  Some d i s c u s s i o n  of  the  unfamiliar  seems w a r r a n t e d a b o u t  the  difference  between o r a l f r e e  recall  and  the  probed  recall,  one  hand, and  comprehension.  As  already  comprehension,  there  was  the  text  (that  unfamiliar  recognition-of-meaning on  noted,  a  the  i s , for questions  sets  of q u e s t i o n s d e a l i n g  with target  with  students'  remember t h e  the  t o draw  inferences  above, t h e r e questions were t h e  was  f i n d i n g s are qualitative probe  and  main e f f e c t f o r  the  recall,  i n d i c a t i n g that  the  by  previous  two  support  ability As  for  was  was  noted factual  familiar  topic  dealt  conveyed  students'  and  texts  not overall  evident.  there  may  This  These  be  a  elicited  elcited  of  by  by  free  interpretation  research.  Gormley  recall  of  familiar  (1982) f o u n d  knowledge and  comprehension  ability  predictors  comprehension  performance.  of  were  factual  comprehension  comprehension  children's  t e x t , Marr and  there  however, the  familiar topic  between t h e  m e a s u r e s , and  t h e i r s t u d y of  unfamiliar  unfamiliar  of  specifically  metaphors.  d i r e c t i o n of  probe  as  the  r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g measures.  supported In  of  of  tests  facts explicitly with  were t h e  on  of  i n favour  dealing  metaphors:  test,  measures  former  recall,  dealt  content  f o r the  inferential  difference  probed  in.the  i s , the  interpreted  recall  recall is  scores  e f f e c t in favour  In  inferential  from t h e  same, t h a t For  to  a trend  in that  manifest. topic  metaphors).  metaphors w h i l e  two  as  significant difference  the  ability  other,  f o r the  with  by  target  the  that  and prior  strongest  They a l s o  noted  that  85  oral  free  probe  recall  recall  knowledge. the  questions  familiarity general  the  of  elaborate. Johnson  the This  notion  probed  processing  text  of  k n o w l e d g e , whereas text-learned The conveyed  by  than  of  the  familiar.  and  in o r a l free is  above  better  contend  that  limited  to the  These a  work  of  induce a d d i t i o n a l  a greater  r e s u l t s are  facilitative  unfamiliar  f o u n d no  surrounding  use  of  prior  reliance  but  not  the  on  in  Pearson,  significant  unfamiliar  interpreted  e f f e c t when  when t h e  not  information  topic  a  was the &  effect for  b o u n d a r i e s of  f i n d i n g t h a t metaphor had  the  Raphael, TePaske  incidental material,  structure  as  a f f e c t memory f o r  and  w h a t e v e r metaphor e f f e c t s e x i s t a p p e a r surface  and  (1978) w h i c h  remembered  m e t a p h o r s , however, d i d  of  that  inferences  i n d i c a t e that  incidental material.  comprehension  whatever  strongest  thus a greater  recall  and  i s , their  from t h e  Cera  of  evident.  metaphor had  (1979) l i k e w i s e  The  support  m e a s u r e s may  information  t e x t was  The  surrounding Hyser  recall  m e t a p h o r s was  that  t o draw  prior  recalls,  they noted the  that  most  they provided  t o p i c s was  B r i d g e and  in familiar text.  indicating topic  the  the  ability  results discussed  o r a l free  (probed),  receives  information  students provided  Furthermore,  Tierney,  suggests that  text  topic.  students'  (1983) and  r e s p o n s e s and  p r i o r knowledge, t h a t  p r i o r knowledge of  predictor  the  in their  further  from t h e i r  with  that  information  when q u e s t i o n e d  seemed r e l e v a n t  text-based  e n c o u r a g e d more r e s p o n s e s b a s e d on  They p o s t u l a t e d  comprehended  that,  measures e l i c i t e d  the  facilitative  to  they be  metaphors. e f f e c t when  86  the  t o p i c of t h e t e x t  was u n f a m i l i a r  familiar  may  metaphor  e s p o u s e d by O r t o n y  be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e b r i d g i n g  a metaphor a l l o w s (the v e h i c l e ) the  be  a reader  i s unfamiliar,  t o be more v i v i d  with  useful—and  way.  explaining  new  a r e more  concepts.  a compact a n d v i v i d i s expressed  illustrations that  i t would  which  in a  image novel  a r e not as u s e f u l or as  i s already  known,  neither  metaphors. f i n d i n g of the present  effect  o f metaphor  target  metaphors  Arter  in unfamiliar  text  regarding  the f a c i l i t a t i v e  on t h e f r e e  i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n that  As shown i n F i g u r e  literal  information might  versions from  of the t e x t s  have been e x p e c t e d . versions  unfamiliar  text.  i t i s a r e s u l t that  r e c a l l e d more than  information  due t o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s .  (1979) p r o d u c e d  this  r e s u l t only  read  target  s t u d e n t s who  (1976) d i d n o t a c h i e v e  text  read the  from t h e  the p r e d i c t e d  Pearson  i n the f i r s t  both  but d i d not  from t h e u n f a m i l i a r  In c o n t r a s t ,  r e c a l l e d more t a r g e t  Arter  r e c a l l of  1 (on page 8 0 ) , s t u d e n t s who  the f a m i l i a r text  metaphoric  result  study  (1976) a n d P e a r s o n e t a l . (1979) p r e d i c t e d  achieve.  as  Illustrations  or experience which  I n t h e same way t h a t  The  the  expect the  An a n a l o g o u s s i t u a t i o n i s  of i l l u s t r a t i o n ,  memorable when t h e y p o r t r a y are  In s i t u a t i o n s where  one might  in text.  more n e c e s s a r y — w h e n  an i d e a , c o n c e p t  that i s ,  and t h u s more memorable t h a n  illustrations  Metaphors are a kind  (1979):  knowledge f r o m t h e known  (the t o p i c ) .  i f t h e t o p i c was more f a m i l i a r .  observed  of  to transfer  was  f u n c t i o n of  (1975) a n d P e t r i e  t o t h e unknown  t o p i c of t h e t e x t  metaphor  b u t n o t when t h e t o p i c  et a l .  of t h e i r  three  87  experiments. the  They were u n a b l e  results  of  to  a  et  a l . s t a t e d t h a t on  out  "floor  target free  of  effect"  to analyze,  recall  resulting the  in their  from p o o r  average,  10 p o s s i b l e t a r g e t  student  that  recall.  In  the p r e s e n t  2.16  of  8 p o s s i b l e t a r g e t idea u n i t s ;  out  recall.  The  greater  r a t e of  have been a  f u n c t i o n of  et  23  a l . used  present  study  employed  in  the  free  target  Petrie  recall  recall  a kind  of metaphor  and  the  able  students  from the  effect recall  prior  measures.  recall  of  the  In t h e s e  For  On  Pearson while  familiar  knowledge o f t o p i c s t h a n  that  evident  primarily  on  tasks,  students'  the  of  by O r t o n y  the (1975)  responses  and to  d i f f e r e n c e in favour t h e r e was  an  from  t e x t on that  text  the  of  effect no  the  In c o n t r a s t , t h e r e  relied on  the  measures  t o answer q u e s t i o n s  students  may  t h i s measure t h e r e was  I t i s suggested  questions,  study  students  were r e l y i n g  unfamiliar texts.  i n favour  average  percent  i t i s suggested  produced, although  ability  the  students.  however, no  questions.  on  i n u n f a m i l i a r t e x t were  to operate.  in students'  and  probed  their  study,  1.0  percent  subjects.  sixth-grade  due  Pearson  only  i s , 27  recognition-of-meaning  questions,  for factual  difference  the  present  u n f a m i l i a r s c o r e s was  probed  26  number of  f u n c t i o n of metaphor h y p o t h e s i z e d  the probed  a topic  and  i s , ten  i n the p r e s e n t  i n f o r m a t i o n to respond.  (1979) was  familiar  age  recall.  recalled  that  way,  experiment  recalled  seventh-grade  i n f o r m a t i o n because  bridging  of  to the  effects  text-learned  the  46  students  recall  t h i r d - g r a d e and  With regard facilitative  the  final  students  idea u n i t s ;  study,  in a meaningful  was  other  in responding more h e a v i l y information,  on  to  88  including further  the metaphors.  r e s e a r c h on t h e n a t u r e  measures w i d e l y The recall  finding  effect  facilitative unfamiliar  difference finding  c o n t r a s t e d with  suggested studies  free  have b e e n  questions findings To  (1979),  significant  of the text  was  the present  effect  in findings  t o the fact  two m e a s u r e s o f  factual).  Itis  between t h e two et a l .  t h e m e t a p h o r s o n l y when t h e  study  recall  i n favour of  that Pearson  recalled  In t h e p r e s e n t  This  i n the preceding a l l students  questions  oral  were  asked  f o l l o w i n g the o r a l  t a s k ; thus a g r e a t e r degree of e x t r a p r o c e s s i n g of and a g r e a t e r s t i m u l a t i o n of prior-knowledge  induced  investigate  topic  and i n c i d e n t a l  questions concerning  b a t t e r y of probe  information  a  probe  indicating a  f o r the other  h a d n o t been v o l u n t a r i l y  recall  e_t a l .  e t a l . found  was f a m i l i a r ,  the o v e r a l l  (inferential  task.  of Pearson  to factual  answers f o r these q u e s t i o n s .  may be a t t r i b u t a b l e  recall  i n regard  probe r e c a l l  w h i c h was e v i d e n t  factual  of the v a r i o u s  o f a k i n d i n t h a t t h e r e was no  t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e  the e n t i r e free  Pearson  t h e need f o r  research.  f o r m e t a p h o r when t h e t o p i c  i n students'  recall  target  While  o n l y an e f f e c t  familiar  probed  the f i n d i n g  on f a c t u a l  effect  study  b u t n o t when t h e t o p i c  found  asked  of t h e p r e s e n t with  suggests  and r e l a t i o n s h i p  i n comprehension  a difference.  interaction  the  used  i s consonant  despite  study  This p o s s i b i l i t y  i n the present  the a b i l i t y  concerning  of t h e i r  study. students  Pearson  may  e t §_1. d i d n o t  t o answer  t h e m e t a p h o r s , so a c o m p a r i s o n  inferential with  these  was n o t p o s s i b l e . sum up, t h e n ,  the f i n d i n g s  i n r e g a r d t o the second  89  question  show t h a t  there  students'  comprehension  topic  their  and  topic.  of m e t a p h o r i c  unfamiliar  to  of  the  information  were not  c o n v e y e d by  extended  to  students'  information  students are  c o n v e y e d by the  able  m e t a p h o r s and  interpretations  of  metaphoric  text  is unfamiliar  due  stimulation  to to  comprehension  metaphors b e t t e r  recognize when t h e  of  of v i v i d  i m a g e r y and  the  of metaphor h y p o t h e s i z e d  and  (1979).  This  illustrative  material  text  suggests  w h i c h may  to c l a r i f y  the the  correct  topic  of  a  t h a n when i t i s f a m i l i a r , p o s s i b l y  function  expository  target  remember  "bridging" Petrie  the  a familiar  incidental material.  appears that  the  of m e t a p h o r i c  an  T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , however, were c o n f i n e d  m e t a p h o r s , and  to  on  on  surrounding  comprehension  texts  between  texts  comprehension  It  were i n d e e d d i f f e r e n c e s  that  well  and  to  by  hypothesized Ortony  metaphors a c t  be  u s e d by  increase  (1975)  as  writers  memory f o r  of  unfamiliar  concepts. The support extend  r e s u l t s of to the  to text  Nonetheless,  idea as  the  present  that  the  i t is possible  study  by  made of  This  students'  or metaphoric structural  of  of  texts.  lend  metaphor  surrounding  material.  e f f e c t would o c c u r high the  if  the  structural f i n d i n g s of  the  i n which a comparison  was  passages with e i t h e r  statements,  the  the  u n i t s of  (1979),  not  e f f e c t s of  i s a u g u r e d by  comprehension  hierarchy  this  i n idea  Scwartz  summarizing  i s , to  that  possibility  R e y n o l d s and  however, do  facilitative  a whole, t h a t  m e t a p h o r s were p o s i t i o n e d importance.  study,  that  literal  i s , u n i t s high  These r e s e a r c h e r s  in  found  the that  90  the  metaphoric  information several  as  texts  familiar  conclusions a whole. on  topics  increased I t s h o u l d be  unfamiliar would be  in p o s i t i o n s  overall  comprehension,  level  idea  units.  of  i n the  texts  f a m i l i a r and  on  study  by  discourse  structure,  and  number of  idea  as  metaphoric this  task  units  targets  Cunningham  well  became e v i d e n t  as  (1976).  task. early  upon  few  The  high  texts  similar  literal  The  with  construction  approximately  equivalent  i n the  effects  metaphoric  t o p i c s which are  a easy  on  d e n s e l y embedded  which c o n t a i n  i s not  contain  f o r example, the  unfamiliar  texts  to t e s t the  texts  Furthermore, texts  employed  that  s t r u c t u r a l importance  for short  metaphors appear u n n a t u r a l ;  several  in order  high  passage  n o t e d , however,  t o p i c s , and  required  of metaphors text  memory f o r  the  in same  and  d i f f i c u l t nature  s t a g e s of  of  the  of  present  study. 3.  SUMMARY AND  IMPLICATIONS FOR  M e t a p h o r d o e s not comprehension  of  is,  when the  the  metaphors are  recall the  of  expository  topic  of  and  discussed  experiences  language  form  in texts  to  the  i n the  preceding  best  experience with  may  and  facilitate  be  to develop  texts  students'  even  training exercises.  children's  to  i n some s i t u a t i o n s  is unfamiliar  m e t a p h o r , e d u c a t o r s may  w i t h d i r e c t metaphor  natural  text,  text  As  knowledge and  of  to pose a problem  known) metaphor may  curriculum  vocabulary,  publishers  the  information.  e f f e c t of  designing  appear  CLASSROOM PRACTICE  wish to  (that  vehicles  of  students section  concerned  on  with  students'  language  rather  than  Furthermore, incorporate  illustrate  possibly  this unfamiliar  91  c o n c e p t s o r t o enhance t h e m e m o r a b i l i t y rather  than a v o i d i n g  troublesome 4.  using  of s p e c i f i c  ideas,  metaphor due t o i t s h i t h e r t o  supposed  nature.  CONCLUSIONS On t h e b a s i s  discussion several  of the r e s u l t s presented  of the r e s u l t s presented  conclusions  (1)  are offered.  i n Chapter  i n the present  They a r e a s  T h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s  between  4 and the  chapter,  follows:  students'  comprehension  of texts  containing  m e t a p h o r s and t h e i r  comprehension  of texts  containing  equivalent  literal  phrases.  students'  ability  t o remember  (2) and  Under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s ,  t o comprehend  information  namely, when t h e v e h i c l e s topic  of the t e x t (3)  answer  Under t h e s e  for  topic  recall  same c o n d i t i o n s ,  factual questions  This  a r e known and when t h e  students'  b a s e d on t h e m e t a p h o r s  t o answer  factual questions  a b i l i t y to i s no d i f f e r e n t from t h e f a m i l i a r  f i n d i n g d e m o n s t r a t e s an e f f e c t o f a k i n d ,  significantly  i n favour  (4)  of the text  by m e t a p h o r s ;  i s unfamiliar.  from t h e i r a b i l i t y text.  is facilitated  affected  of the f a m i l i a r  The d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s  however,  t h e o t h e r measures o f probed text. from t h e f r e e  r e c a l l and  r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g m e a s u r e s , on t h e one hand, and t h e p r o b e d recall that  m e a s u r e s , on t h e o t h e r ,  there  evidenced  were i n t e r p r e t e d  are q u a l i t a t i v e differences by t h e s e  two s e t s  i n the comprehension  of measures.  (5) M e t a p h o r e f f e c t s a p p e a r structure  as i n d i c a t i n g  t o be l i m i t e d t o t h e s u r f a c e  b o u n d a r i e s of the metaphors.  M e t a p h o r s do n o t a p p e a r  92  to  facilitate  information (6)  the comprehension  i n which  appear w i t h  metaphors, designed  difficulties  they l i k e l y  to build  contextual  comprehending  will  their  benefit  activities  t o h e l p them u s e  l a n g u a g e and l i t e r a t u r e  metaphor  which c h i l d r e n  t o expand  their  and t o d e v e l o p t h e i r  specific  need h e l p .  ideas  of c h i l d r e n ' s  concerning  unfamiliar.  5.  IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH  containing  certain  unfamiliar students'  equivalents  a n d when t h e v e h i c l e s ability  topic  a topic  form  w i t h which they  comprehension  of t e x t s  comprehension  of t h e metaphors,  c o n d i t i o n s — w h e n the topic  of t h e metaphors  i s better  from a t e x t  t h a n i t i s from a t e x t  T h e r e a r e , however, many more q u e s t i o n s  of t e x t s  and t h a t  of the t e x t i s  t o remember and t o comprehend  c o n v e y e d by t h e m e t a p h o r s unfamiliar  students'  i s a s good a s t h e i r  the l i t e r a l  language  with  c h i l d r e n ' s memory and c o m p r e h e n s i o n  are  i s apparent that  s h o u l d be  of language  Rather, i t i s a natural  from a t e x t  c o n t a i n i n g metaphors  texts  i s not a troublesome aspect  w h i c h may be u s e d t o enhance  under  containing  from c u r r i c u l u m  vocabularies,  W r i t e r s and p u b l i s h e r s  aware t h a t  It  texts  knowledge.  (7)  of  need t o  If children are  c u e s as an a i d t o c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,  experiences with general  some f r e q u e n c y i n b a s a l  i s not a language form which c h i l d r e n  be t a u g h t t o a n a l y z e and i n t e r p r e t . experiencing  textual  t h e y a r e embedded.  A l t h o u g h metaphors  r e a d e r s , metaphor  of the i n c i d e n t a l  a r e known—  information w i t h an  with a f a m i l i a r to study i n t h i s  topic. still  93  largely  unexplored area  discourse In be  feature  regard  valuable  to  to  concerning  the  ( m e t a p h o r ) on  text  the  the  nature  investigate  of  the  experimental  e f f e c t s of  with other  t y p e s of  narrative  argument.  I t would a l s o  investigate specific  the  positions  particularly, study  e f f e c t s on  by  within  in higher  R e y n o l d s and  metaphoric  on of  metaphor e f f e c t s beyond in  studies  metaphor  of  1976;  Winkeljohann,  1979;  fact  studies  the  that  metaphors  texts. in  the  Rather,  random With  informal enjoyed  i n the the  i n the  The  b o u n d a r i e s of  present  have not  example, to  of  1976;  the of  s t u d y ) may  The of  text to  find targets  containing  be  f o r the the  and  effects  metaphor  texts  of  texts,  structure.  Pearson et  structure  in  of  failure  the  controlled  discourse texts  on  metaphors  comprehension  comprehension  the  i t would  valuable  (1979) e x a m i n i n g  Cunningham,  and  texts,  for  of  investigation.  children's  (Arter,  be  positions  adults'  the  learning.  structural hierarchy  Schwartz  conclusions  foreshadows t h i s area  level  and  metaphor  discourse;  comprehension the  a specific  comprehension  comprehension and  e f f e c t s of  al.,  1979;  related  to  position  the  of  experimental  e m p l o y e d have c o n t a i n e d many m e t a p h o r s  positions. regard  to  debriefing  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  interview  revealed  the  that  while  reading  a b o u t an  unknown t o p i c  u n u s u a l u s e s of  language  ( m e t a p h o r s ) , many d i d  valuable  to consider  attitude  towards r e a d i n g ,  unknown—when  designing  further  the  not.  on  the  the subjects  meeting I t would  affective  style, interest  research  some  (Wombats) and  s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of learning  subjects,  in  be  domain— the  effects  of  94  metaphor on In  text  regard  subjects,  an  experimental information  comprehension  to  the  reading  silent  texts  likely  provide additional  would  with  the  the  investigation  both  the of  text  comprehension  regard  probed  tasks?  recognition  What  recall  measures? well  employed?  Furthermore,  familiar probed  for  difficult  Are  by  to  recall,  integrate  the  recall  the  topics  i t as  recall be  appropriate  expository  and  altered i f  on  the  by  Ortony  to  recognize those  (1975)?  or  t o draw  texts  are  more inferences,  o r a l answer due  the  the  about  when s t u d e n t s  " i n e x p r e s s i b i l i t y " of research  of  demands  e f f e c t of  difficult  i n an  of  result  in  than  but  information,  Further  comprehension  and  new  " c o m p a c t n e s s " and topic.  find  a  m e a s u r e s were  metaphor p r o p o s e d  they  greater  unfamiliar  probed  a contributing  to  measurement  and/or p r o d u c t i o n  their "vividness",  the  on  free  different  further  qualitative difference  b e t t e r -able  to express themselves  topic  retrieval  of  the  different findings  i s there  and  an  tasks,  measures bear  the  t h e s i s of  information, to  complementary  recognition-of-meaning  metaphors about u n f a m i l i a r  t o p i c s due  the  text.  immediate c o m p r e h e n s i o n  Perhaps s t u d e n t s are meanings o f  and  the  effects  Would t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s  d e l a y e d as  "inexpressibility"  the  criterial  recall  i s the  evidenced  as  the  of  of  i n t e r m s o f m e t a p h o r e f f e c t s and  comprehension.  comprehension  on  to  different integration, the  reading  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  oral free  m e a s u r e s , and  of  s t r a t e g i e s employed by  than a  metaphor on. s t u d e n t s '  f i n d i n g s of  learning.  o r a l rather  t o a s s i s t an  Finally,  and  a  to  metaphor  e f f e c t s of containing  95  metaphors  as w e l l  as on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p and n a t u r e o f  measures of comprehension  i s warranted.  various  96  BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.  A n d e r s o n , C. The p s y c h o l o g y o f m e t a p h o r . G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 105, 53-73.  2.  A n d e r s o n , R. C. How t o c o n s t r u c t a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s t o assess comprehension. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1972, 42, 145-170.  3.  A n d e r s o n , R. The n o t i o n o f schemata and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l enterprise. I n R. A n d e r s o n , R. S p i r o and W. Montague ( E d s . ) , S c h o o l i n g and t h e A c q u i s i t i o n o f Knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : E r l b a u m , 1977.  4.  A n d e r s o n , R. C. and O r t o n y , A. On p u t t i n g a p p l e s i n t o b o t t l e s - a problem of polysemy. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 167-180.  5.  A n d e r s o n , R. C. and P i c h e r t , J . W. R e c a l l of p r e v i o u s l y unrecallable information following a s h i f t in perspective. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 1978, 17, 1-12.  6.  A n d e r s o n , R. C , R e y n o l d s , R. E . , S c h a l l e r t , D. L. and G o e t z , E . T. Frameworks f o r c o m p r e h e n d i n g d i s c o u r s e . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 1977, j_4, 367-382.  7.  A n g l i n , J . M. and M i l l e r , G. A. The r o l e o f p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e i n the r e c a l l of meaningful v e r b a l m a t e r i a l . P s c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e , 1968, j_0, 343-344.  8.  Arlin, Report  9.  A r t e r , J . L. The e f f e c t s o f metaphor on r e a d i n g comprehension. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1976.  P. K. Metaphors No. 78:25.  and  thought  Journal  of  i n c h i l d r e n . ERIBC  10.  A s c h , S. and N e r l o v e , H. The d e v e l o p m e n t of d o u b l e f u n c t i o n t e r m s i n c h i l d r e n : an e x p l o r a t i o n s t u d y . In B. K a p l a n and S. Wapner ( E d s . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l T h e o r y , New Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960.  11.  B a l d w i n , R. S., L u c e , T. S. and Readance, J . E . The impact o f s u b s c h e m a t a on m e t a p h o r i c a l p r o c e s s i n g . Reading R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , 1982, J_7 528-543. f  12.  B e r e i t e r , C. composition: process. In psychology,  and S c a r d a m a l i a , M. From c o n v e r s a t i o n t o the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a d e v e l o p m e n t a l R. G l a s e r ( E d . ) , A d v a n c e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l (Vol.2). H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1982.  97  13.  B i l l o w , R. M. A c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t u d y of metaphor comprehension. D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, JJ_, 415423.  14.  B i l l o w , R. M. M e t a p h o r : a r e v i e w of literature. Psychological Bulletin,  15.  B l a c k , M. Metaphor. In M. B l a c k , M o d e l s and M e t a p h o r s : s t u d i e s i n l a n g u a g e and p h i l o s o p h y . I t h a c a , N.Y.: Cornell U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1962.  16.  B l a c k , M. More a b o u t m e t a p h o r . In A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and t h o u g h t . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979.  17.  Bloom, B. S., E n g e l h a r t , M. D., F u r s t , E. J . , H i l l , W. and K r a t h w o h l , D. R. The Taxonomy of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s : the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s . Y o r k : D a v i d McKay and Co., 1956.  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l 1977, 84, 81-92.  H., New  18.  Campbell, Quarterly  P. N. M e t a p h o r and l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y . J o u r n a l of S p e e c h , 1 975, 6J_, 1-12.  19.  C h o d o s , L. and M o s e n t h a l , P. Fourth graders' c o m p r e h e n s i o n of s t o r y s t r u c t u r e s under t h r e e r e c a l l conditions. In P. D. P e a r s o n and J . Hansen ( E d s . ) , R e a d i n g : d i s c i p l i n e d i n q u i r y i n p r o c e s s and p r a c t i c e . Twenty-seventh Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l Reading Conference, 1978.  20.  C l a r k , H. H. The l a n g u a g e - a s - f i x e d - e f f e c t - f a l l a c y : a c r i t i q u e of l a n g u a g e s t a t i s t i c s i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1973, 12, 335-359.  21.  Corbett, tongue.  22.  C r a i k , I . M. and L o c k h a r t , R. S. L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : a framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1972, JJ_, 671-684.  23.  C r o w c r o f t , P. Head, 1970.  24.  Cunningham, J . W. M e t a p h o r and r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n . J o u r n a l o f R e a d i n g B e h a v i o r , 1976, 8, 363-368.  25.  D a l e , E . and C h a l l , J . S. A formula f o r p r e d i c t i n g r e a d a b i l i t y : i n s t r u c t i o n s . Educational Research B u l l e t i n , 1948, 27, 37-54.  E. P u b l i c double-speak E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 1976,  - I f I speak w i t h 65 ( 4 ) , 16-17.  A u s t r a l i a n marsupials.  L o n d o n : The  forked  Bodley  98  26.  D i x o n , W. J . ( E d . ) BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l S o f t w a r e . U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1983.  27.  D r e i s t a d t , R. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e u s e o f a n a l o g i e s and metaphors i n s c i e n c e . J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 68, 97-116.  28.  Drum, P. A. P r o s e r e c a l l r e s p o n s e s and c a t e g o r i e s f o r scoring. I n P. D. P e a r s o n and J . Hansen ( E d s . ) , R e a d i n g : d i s c i p l i n e d i n q u i r y i n p r o c e s s and p r a c t i c e . Twentys e v e n t h Y e a r b o o k o f t h e N a t i o n a l R e a d i n g C o n f e r e n c e , 1978.  29.  Emig, J . C h i l d r e n and M e t a p h o r . of E n g l i s h , 1972, 6, 163-175.  30.  F e r g u s o n , G. A. S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n P s y c h o l o g y and Education. ( 5 t h Ed.) New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1981.  31.  F o d o r , J . A. and B e v e r , T. G. The p s c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f l i n g u i s t i c segments. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 1965, 4, 414-420.  32.  F r y , E. A r e a d a b i l i t y formula t h a t saves o f R e a d i n g , 1968, J M , 513-6 and 575-8.  33.  G a m b e l l , T. J . and M c F e t r i d g e , P. A. Children, similies, m e t a p h o r s a n d r e a d i n g go t o g e t h e r . R e a d i n g - Canada L e c t u r e , 1981, J_, 29-35.  34.  G a r d n e r , H. M e t a p h o r s and m o d a l i t i e s : how c h i l d r e n p r o j e c t p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s onto d i v e r s e domains. Child D e v e l o p m e n t , 1974, 4_5, 84-91.  35.  G a r d n e r , H., K i r c h e r , M., W i n n e r , E . and P e r k i n s , D. C h i l d r e n ' s m e t a p h o r i c p r o d u c t i o n s and p r e f e r e n c e s . J o u r n a l o f C h i l d Language, 1974, 2, 125-141.  36.  Gaus, P. J . R e c e n t r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n ' s m e t a p h o r i c understanding. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e I.R.A. 24th, A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a . A p r i l 2 3 - 2 7 t h , 1979.  37.  G e n t n e r , D. task. Child  38.  G r e e n , T. F . L e a r n i n g w i t h o u t m e t a p h o r . ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and t h o u g h t . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  39.  G r i n d s t a f f , F . L . and M u l l e r , A. L . The n a t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t o f l i t e r a t u r e : two r e v i e w s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 1975, 9, 80-106.  Research  Berkeley:  i n the Teaching  time.  Journal  C h i l d r e n ' s p e r f o r m a n c e on a s p a t i a l a n a l o g i e s D e v e l o p m e n t , 1977, 48, 1034-1039. In A. O r t o n y Cambridge  99  40.  G u t h r i e , J . T. Research: Metaphor. 1980, 23, 640-642.  41.  Hansen, D. M. A d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s of the comprehension of r a p i d r e a d e r s . In P. D. P e a r s o n ( E d . ) , R e a d i n g : t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e . T w e n t y - s i x t h Y e a r b o o k o f t h e N a t i o n a l R e a d i n g C o n f e r e n c e , 1977.  42.  H a r r i s , T. L . and Hodges, R. E . ( E d s . ) , A d i c t i o n a r y of r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d t e r m s . Newark, D e l a w a r e : I.R.A., 1981.  43.  Hayes, D. A. and M a t e j a , J . A. Long t e r m t r a n s f e r e f f e c t of m e t a p h o r i c a l l u s i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , L o s A n g e l e s , A p r i l 1981. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 200 9 3 0 ) .  44.  Hayes, D. A. and T i e r n e y , R. J . D e v e l o p i n g r e a d e r s ' knowledge t h r o u g h a n a l o g y . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1982, r7, 256-280.  45.  Haynes, F. Metaphor 1975, 25, 272-277.  46.  Hoffman, R. R. and Honeck, R. P. A peacock l o o k s a t i t s l e g s : c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e and f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e . In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e Language, H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  47.  H o l s t e i n , B. I . The use o f metaphor t o i n d u c e i n n o v a t i v e t h i n k i n g i n f o u r t h g r a d e c h i l d r e n . E d u c a t i o n , 1972, 93, 56-60.  48.  Honeck, R. P. H i s t o r i c a l n o t e s on f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e . In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e Language, H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  49.  J o h n s o n , M. G. A p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e problems of metaphor. I n R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e Language, H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  50.  J o h n s o n , M. G. and M a l g a d y , R. G. Toward a p e r c e p t u a l theory of m e t a p h o r i c comprehension. I n R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e L a n g u a g e . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  51.  J o h n s o n , N. F. The p s c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f p h r a s e structure rules. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 1965, 4, 469-475.  as  interactive.  Journal  of Reading,  Educational  Theory,  100  52.  J o h n s o n , R. E . R e c a l l o f p r o s e a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l importance of the l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1970, 9, 12-20.  53.  J o h n s t o n , P. H. Reading comprehension assessment; a cognitive basis. Newark, D e l a w a r e : I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1983.  54.  K i n g , E . M. (Ed.) C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s . (Metric Ed.) Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o : T. N e l s o n & Sons ( C a n a d a ) , 1976.  55.  K i n t s c h , W. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f meaning H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1974.  56.  K i n t s c h , W., K o z m i n s k y , E . , S t r e b y , W. J . , McKoon, G., and Keenan, J . M. Comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t as a f u n c t i o n of content v a r i a b l e s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 1975, j_4, 196-214.  57.  L a i , C. UBC SPSS: S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S o c i a l Sciences. V a n c o u v e r : UBC C o m p u t i n g C e n t r e , 1983.  58.  M a l g a d y , R. G. and J o h n s o n , M. G. M o d i f i e r s i n m e t a p h o r s : e f f e c t s o f c o n s t i t u e n t p h r a s e s i m i l a r i t y on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f i g u r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s . J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c R e s e a r c h , 1976, 5, 43-52.  59.  M a r r , M. B. and G o r m l e y , K. C h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l of f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t e x t . R e a d i n g R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , 1982, J_8, 89-104.  60.  Marston, E. C h i l d r e n ' s p o e t r y p r e f e r e n c e s : a r e v i e w . R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 1975, 9, 107-110.  61.  Mayer, R. E . D i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s o l v i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n l e a r n i n g computer programming w i t h and without meaningful models. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 67, 725-734.  62.  M c C l o s k y , M.  63.  M c C l u n g , R. M. Hunted Morrow & Co., 1978.  64.  Meyer, B. J . F. The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p r o s e a n d i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: N o r t h - H o l l a n d P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975.  65.  Meyer, B. J . F . and M c C o n k i e , G. W. What i s r e c a l l e d a f t e r h e a r i n g a passage? J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 65, 109-117.  66.  M i l l e r , J . W. L i n g u i s t i c s and c o m p r e h e n s i o n . E n g l i s h , 1974, 51_, 853-4, 857.  _  Metaphors.  Mind,  mammals  i n memory.  1964, 73, 215-233. of the sea.  New Y o r k :  Wm.  Elementary  101  67.  M i l l e r , R. M. The d u b i o u s c a s e f o r m e t a p h o r s i n educational writing. E d u c a t i o n a l T h e o r y , 1976, 26, 181 . a r e n e c e s s a r y and 25, 45-53.  17 4—  68.  O r t o n y , A. Why m e t a p h o r s E d u c a t i o n a l T h e o r y , 1975,  not j u s t  nice.  69.  O r t o n y , A. On t o my c r i t i c s .  70.  O r t o n y , A. Beyond l i t e r a l s i m i l a r i t y . Review, 1979, 86, 161-180. (a)  71.  O r t o n y , A. Metaphor: a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l problem. In A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and T h o u g h t . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. (b)  72.  O r t o n y , A. Some p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s o f m e t a p h o r . C e n t r e f o r t h e S t u d y o f R e a d i n g , T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 112, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n , 1979. ( c )  73.  O r t o n y , A. metaphors. Cambridge:  74.  O r t o n y , A. Metaphor. In R. J . S p i r o , B. C. B r u c e and W. F. Brewer, T h e o r e t i c a l I s s u e s i n r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l b a u m , 1980. (a)  75.  O r t o n y , A. U n d e r s t a n d i n g metaphors. C e n t r e f o r the of R e a d i n g , T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 154, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1980. (b)  76.  O r t o n y , A., R e y n o l d s , R. E . and A r t e r , J . L . Metaphor: t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1978, 85, 919-943.  77.  O r t o n y , A., S c h a l l e r t , D. L., R e y n o l d s , R. E . and A n t o s , S. J . I n t e r p r e t i n g m e t a p h o r s and i d i o m s : some e f f e c t s of c o n t e x t on c o m p r e h e n s i o n . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1978, J_7, 465-477.  78.  Osgood, C. E . The c o g n i t i v e d y n a m i c s o f s y n e s t h e s i a and metaphor. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e L a n g u a g e. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.  79.  P a i v i o , A. P s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n the comprehension of m e t a p h o r . In A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and T h o u g h t . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  t h e n a t u r e and v a l u e o f m e t a p h o r . A-reply E d u c a t i o n a l T h e o r y , 1976, 26, 45-53. Psychological  The r o l e o f s i m i l a r i t y i n s i m i l e s and In A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and T h o u g h t . Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. Cdl  Study  1 02  80.  P e a r s o n , P. D. and J o h n s o n , D. D. Teaching reading comprehension. New Y o r k : H o l t R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1978.  81.  P e a r s o n , P. D., R a p h a e l , T. E . , T e P a s k e , N. a n d H y s e r , C. The f u n c t i o n o f metaphor i n c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l o f expository passages. C e n t r e f o r t h e Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 131, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a Champaign, 1979.  82.  P e r r i n e , L . F o u r forms o f m e t a p h o r . 1971, 33, 125-138.  83.  P e t r i e , H. G. Metaphor and l e a r n i n g . I n A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and T h o u g h t . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  84.  P o l l i o , M. and P o l l i o , H. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f f i g u r a t i v e language i n school c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c R e s e a r c h , 1974, 3, 185-201.  85.  P o l l i o , H. R., B a r l o w , J . M., F i n e , H. J . , and P o l l i o , M. R. P s y c h o l o g y and t h e p o e t i c s o f g r o w t h : f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e i n p s y c h o l o g y , p s y c h o t h e r a p y and e d u c a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : E r l b a u m , 1977".  86.  P o l l i o , M. R. and P i c k e n s , J . D. The d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e o f f i g u r a t i v e competence. I n R. P. Honeck a n d R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n a n d F i g u r a t i v e L a n g u a g e . H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  87.  R e i n s c h , N. L . An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e metaphor and s i m i l e i n p e r s u a s i v e d i s c o u r s e . Speech M o n o g r a p h s, 1971, 38, 142-145.  88.  R e y n o l d s , R. E . and O r t o n y , A. Some i s s u e s i n t h e measurement o f c h i l d r e n ' s c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f m e t a p h o r i c a l language. C e n t r e f o r t h e Study o f Reading, T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 172, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n , 1980.  89.  R e y n o l d s , R. E . and S c h w a r t z , R. M. The r e l a t i o n o f m e t a p h o r i c p r o c e s s i n g t o t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n and memory o f prose. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o , A p r i l 1979.  90.  R i c h a r d s , I . A. The p h i l o s o p h y O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1936.  91.  R u m e l h a r t , D. Schemata: t h e b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f c o g n i t i o n . In R. S p i r o , B. B r u c e and W. Brewer ( E d s . ) , T h e o r e t i c a l I s s u e s i n R e a d i n g and C o m p r e h e n s i o n . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : E r l b a u m , 1980.  College  of r h e t o r i c .  English,  London:  103  92.  S c h w a r t z , R. M. L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : t h e demands o f r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n . Reading Q u a r t e r l y , 1980, J_5, 433-450.  strategic Research  93.  S e a r l e , J . R. Metaphor. In A. O r t o n y ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and Thought. C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  94.  S h i b l e s , W. The m e t a p h o r i c a l method. A e s t h e t i c E d u c a t i o n - , 1974, 8, 25-36.  95.  S m i t h , J . W. C h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w r i t t e n metaphor U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1973.  96.  S t i c h t , T. G. E d u c a t i o n a l uses of metaphor. In A. ( E d . ) , M e t a p h o r and t h o u g h t . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  97.  T a y l o r , B. M. C h i l d r e n ' s and a d u l t ' s r e c a l l o f g e n e r a l c o n c e p t s and d e t a i l s a f t e r r e a d i n g . In M. L. K a m i l and A. J . Moe ( E d s . ) , R e a d i n g r e s e a r c h : s t u d i e s and applications. T w e n t y - e i g h t h Y e a r b o o k of t h e N a t i o n a l R e a d i n g C o n f e r e n c e , 1979.  98.  T i e r n e y , R. J . , B r i d g e , C. and C e r a , M. J . The d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1978-1979, j_4, 539-573.  99.  T i e r n e y , R. J . and Cunningham, J . W. R e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g comprehension. C e n t r e f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 187, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a Champaign, 1980.  Journal  of  Ortony  100.  T u r n e r , A. and G r e e n e , E . The c o n s t r u c t i o n and use o f p r o p o s i t i o n a l text base. I n s t i t u t e f o r the Study of I n t e l l e c t u a l B e h a v i o r , T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. 63, U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o a t B o u l d e r , 1977.  101.  V a l e r i , M. and S m i t h , E . F i g u r a t i v e L a n g u a g e : How i s i t Used i n B a s a l Readings? R e a d i n g H o r i z o n s , 1983, 23, 170174.  102.  van D i j k , T. A. Formal s e m a n t i c s of m e t a p h o r i c a l discourse. P o e t i c s , 1975, 4, 173-198.  103.  V e r b r u g g e , R. R. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n knowing: a r e a l i s t view of metaphor. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. H o f f m a n ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e . Hillsdale, N. J . : E r l b a u m , 1980.  104  104.  V e r b r u g g e , R. R. and M c C a r r e l l , N. S. Metaphoric comprehension: s t u d i e s i n r e m i n d i n g and r e s e m b l i n g . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 9, 494-533.  105.  W i n e r , B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s in Experimental D e s i g n (2nd Ed.) New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1971. ~~  106.  W i n k e l j o h a n n , R. J . The e f f e c t s of t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h m e t a p h o r s ( f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e ) a p p e a r i n p r o s e on t h e r e a d i n g comprehension o f s e l e c t e d g r o u p s o f f i f t h and e i g h t h grade elementary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a Champaign, 1979.  107.  W i n n e r , E . , E n g e l , M. and G a r d n e r , H. m e t a p h o r : what's t h e p r o b l e m ? Journal C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 1980, 30, 22-32.  108.  W i n n e r , E . , M c C a r t h y , M. and G a r d n e r , H. The o n t o g e n e s i s of m e t a p h o r . In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and F i g u r a t i v e L a n g u a g e . H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erlbaum, 1980.  109.  W i n n e r , E . , R o s e n t i e l , A. K. and G a r d n e r , H. The development of metaphoric u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, J_2, 289-297. OF TEXT IS 1 GO  Misunderstanding of E x p e r i m e n t a l  1 05  APPENDIX A - FAMILIAR  TEXT  Among t h e snow c o v e r e d i s l a n d s and i c y w a t e r s of t h e A r c t i c c o a s t l i v e s t h e s e c o n d l a r g e s t bear i n t h e w o r l d - t h e p o l a r bear. When f u l l y grown, t h i s l a r g e w h i t e - f u r r e d a n i m a l (marshmallow g i a n t ) s t a n d s one t o one and a h a l f m e t e r s h i g h a t t h e s h o u l d e r s , and i s a b o u t two and a h a l f m e t e r s l o n g from nose to tail. P o l a r b e a r s a r e w e l l a d a p t e d t o t h e i r a r c t i c home. T h e i r w h i t e f u r c o a t s (shag r u g s ) make them d i f f i c u l t t o see a g a i n s t t h e i c e and snow, and keep them warm i n t h e s u b - z e r o temperatures. An e x t r a membrane ( B u i l t - i n s u n g l a s s e s ) o v e r t h e i r s m a l l b l a c k e y e s p r o t e c t s them from t h e g l a r e of t h e i c e ' and snow. L a r g e paws w i t h f u r between t h e pads g i v e them a nons l i p g r i p (a g r i p l i k e s t u d d e d snow t i r e s ) as t h e y move a c r o s s t h e i c e . T h e i r s t r o n g l e g s can s p r e a d wide a p a r t when t h e y walk so t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e y may w e i g h a s much as f o u r h u n d r e d k i l o g r a m s (a l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r ) , t h e y can t r a v e l a c r o s s i c e t o o t h i n t o h o l d up a man. L i k e most b e a r s , t h e p o l a r b e a r l i v e s a l o n e . P o l a r bears o n l y come t o g e t h e r f o r a few d a y s i n t h e s p r i n g t o mate. The p r e g n a n t f e m a l e t h e n has a l l summer t o g a i n w e i g h t and s t o r e up a t h i c k l a y e r of f a t f o r t h e coming w i n t e r . In t h e f a l l , t h e f e m a l e d i g s a den (a c o z y a n i m a l i g l o o ) f o r h e r s e l f i n a snowy slope. She t h e n t a k e s h e r w i n t e r s l e e p , and i n December o r J a n u a r y , g i v e s b i r t h t o two c u b s . By l a t e M a r c h , t h e c u b s a r e a l l f u r r e d o u t , and w e i g h a b o u t s i x k i l o g r a m s e a c h . They a r e t h e n r e a d y t o go o u t s i d e ( t o l e a v e t h e i r s h e l t e r e d c o c o o n ) . The c u b s s t a y w i t h t h e i r mother w h i l e she h u n t s , and soon t h e y l e a r n to h u n t and swim. A f t e r two y e a r s t h e y l e a v e t h e i r mother and l i v e alone too. F o r most of t h e y e a r t h e p o l a r b e a r d i n e s on s e a l s . Keen e y e s i g h t and s m e l l h e l p t h e b e a r i n i t s h u n t . The b e a r i s v e r y good a t s n i f f i n g out ( T h i s n o r t h e r n S h e r l o c k Holmes can d e t e c t ) a snow c a v e t h a t i s p r o t e c t i n g baby s e a l s . When s e a l s a r e not a v a i l a b l e , t h e b e a r w i l l e a t a n y t h i n g i t c a n f i n d s u c h as b i r d s , b e r r i e s , g r a s s e s , eggs o r even a s t r a n d e d w h a l e . P o l a r b e a r s u s u a l l y l i v e t o be f i f t e e n o r t w e n t y y e a r s o l d , and i n z o o s have even l i v e d t o be t h i r t y y e a r s o l d . The l i v e s of p o l a r b e a r s , however, have been e n d a n g e r e d more and more d u r i n g r e c e n t y e a r s by b i g h u n t i n g o p e r a t i o n s and o i l s p i l l s . P o l a r b e a r s must be p r o t e c t e d by humans i f t h e y a r e t o s u r v i v e .  Literal  Equivalent Targets - underlined  Metaphor T a r g e t s - u n d e r l i n e d i n  parentheses  106  APPENDIX B - UNFAMILIAR TEXT T h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f wombat; t h e common wombat and t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat. T h e s e wombats a r e s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n appearance, and l i v e i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t h a b i t a t s . The common wombat l i v e s a l o n e i n ( i s t h e Lone Ranger o f ) the f o r e s t s of E a s t e r n A u s t r a l i a . I t h a s a d a r k brown c o a t which i s t h i c k and c o a r s e , and a bare b l a c k muzzle (muzzle l i k e a dog's). In c o n t r a s t , t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat h a s , a s i t s name shows, a m u z z l e c o v e r e d by t h e s h o r t f u r o f t h e f a c e . I t a l s o has a f i n e s i l k y c o a t which v a r i e s i n c o l o r from g r e y - b l a c k t o y e l l o w . T h i s wombat l i v e s i n l a r g e g r o u p s (wombat v i l l a g e s ) i n t h e almost t r e e l e s s "outback" of South A u s t r a l i a . Both kinds of wombat a r e b u r r o w e r s . They a r e s t r o n g l y b u i l t ( b u i l t l i k e w e i g h t - l i f t e r s ) w i t h t h i c k s e t b o d i e s , s h o r t f r o n t l e g s and powerful shoulders. T h e i r f r o n t paws have s t r o n g c u r v e d n a i l s ( n a i l s l i k e s m a l l s h o v e l s ) , w h i l e t h e i r back paws have s o f t pads. To d i g a burrow, t h e wombat s i t s on i t s r e a r end a n d h a c k s o u t t h e e a r t h w i t h i t s f o r e p a w s , p u s h i n g i t t o one s i d e . Then t h e a n i m a l b a c k s o u t o f t h e t u n n e l k i c k i n g d i r t a s i t g o e s . A wombats burrow i s d e e p , a n d i n some c a s e s , l a r g e enough f o r a man t o c r a w l i n t o . —  Wombats come o u t o f t h e i r b u r r o w s a t n i g h t . They f e e d on grasses. (The wombats' d i n n e r t a b l e i s a f i e l d o f g r a s s ) . F a r m e r s have no u s e f o r t h e a n i m a l s b e c a u s e t h e y sometimes t e a r l a r g e h o l e s i n fences and e a t the c r o p s . Wombats c a n o c c a s i o n a l l y be seen by d a y a s w e l l . On warm w i n t e r d a y s , wombats o f t e n l i e ( s u n b a t h e ) n e a r t h e o p e n i n g s t o t h e i r b u r r o w s . At t h e s e t i m e s t h e y a r e e a s i l y c a u g h t . In t h e m i d d l e o f w i n t e r , a f e m a l e wombat g i v e s b i r t h t o one baby wombat o r j o e y , w h i c h i t c a r r i e s i n i t s p o u c h u n t i l i t i s l a r g e enough t o f e e d on g r a s s . A wombat's p o u c h h a s two n i p p l e s , b u t o n l y one baby c a n l i v e even when two a r e b o r n . T h e r e s i m p l y i s n ' t enough room f o r two, and even w i t h one j o e y , t h e p o u c h s c r a p e s on t h e g r o u n d a t t i m e s . The l a r g e s t wombat grows t o be more t h a n one meter l o n g , and may w e i g h a s much a s t h i r t y - t w o k i l o g r a m s (a t e n y e a r o l d c h i I d ) when i t i s f u l l y grown. A wombat a l s o h a s a l a r g e h e a d , round e a r s and s m a l l e y e s . I t l o o k s s t u p i d and grumpy, b u t i t i s n o t . A wombat i s e a s i l y tamed, and b e i n g a l o n g l i v e d a n i m a l , makes a good p e t . Literal  Equivalent  Metaphor T a r g e t s  Targets  - underlined  - underlined  i n parentheses  1 07  APPENDIX C - PRIOR KNOWLEDGE PRETEST 1. PART A I n s t r u c t i o n s : W r i t e down a l l y o u know a b o u t P o l a r B e a r s i n t h e space p r o v i d e d below. W r i t e words o r p h r a s e s r a t h e r t h a n complete sentences. The t e n i t e m s i n t h e column on t h e l e f t w i l l h e l p y o u t h i n k o f t h i n g s y o u know a b o u t t h e a n i m a l . Example: Here 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  i s an example o f what y o u a r e r e q u i r e d Donkeys  C o l o r ; grey S i z e : s m a l l h o r s e , one and an h a l f m e t e r s l o n g W e i g h t : d o n ' t now Appearance: p o i n t e d f u r r y ears, hoofs l i k e a horse (etc.)  POLAR BEARS 1.  Color:  2.  Size:  3.  Weight:  4.  Appearance:  5.  Favorite  6.  Habitat  7.  Habits  8.  Length of L i f e :  9.  T h i n g s which might endanger a p o l a r  10.  Foods: ( p l a c e where  i t lives):  (when i t s l e e p s ,  Any o t h e r  facts  that  e a t s , has babies  y o u know a b o u t  etc.):  bear's polar  life: bears:  t o do.  108  2. PART B I n s t r u c t i o n s : W r i t e down a l l p r o v i d e d below. W r i t e words sentences. The t e n i t e m s i n y o u t h i n k o f t h i n g s y o u know Example:  Here  y o u know a b o u t Wombats i n t h e space or phrases r a t h e r than complete t h e column on t h e l e f t w i l l h e l p about the a n i m a l .  i s an example o f what y o u a r e r e q u i r e d Donkeys  Color; grey S i z e : s m a l l h o r s e , one and an h a l f m e t e r s l o n g W e i g h t : d o n ' t now Appearance: p o i n t e d f u r r y e a r s , hoofs l i k e a horse (etc.)  WOMBATS 1.  Color:  2.  Size:  3.  Weight:  4.  Appearance:  5.  Favorite  6.  Habitat  7.  Habits  8.  Length of L i f e :  9.  T h i n g s w h i c h might  10.  Foods: ( p l a c e where i t l i v e s ) :  (when  Any o t h e r  i t sleeps,  facts  eats,  endanger  that  has b a b i e s e t c . ) :  a wombat's  life:  y o u know a b o u t wombats:  t o do.  109  3. PART C I n s t r u c t i o n s : Please read the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s c a r e f u l l y , and c h o o s e t h e p h r a s e w h i c h b e s t g i v e s t h e meaning of t h e u n d e r l i n e d word o r words. C i r c l e t h e number of t h e answer w h i c h you c h o o s e . (1) A  Example: Here i s an example o f what you a r e school i s : 1. a p l a c e where p e o p l e p l a y h o c k e y 2. a p l a c e where p e o p l e l e a r n 3. a p l a c e where p e o p l e w o r s h i p 4. a p l a c e where p e o p l e e a t  (a) The 1. * 2. 3. 4.  required  Lone Ranger i s : a p e r s o n who i s l o n e l y a p e r s o n who l i v e s and t r a v e l s a c r o s s countryside alone a Ranger who i s l o n e l y a p e r s o n who i s a l l a l o n e  (b) A dog * 1. a 2. a 3. a 4. a  is: k i n d of a n i m a l k i n d of m i n e r a l k i n d of v e g e t a b l e k i n d of p e r s o n  (c) A v i l l a g e i s : 1. a c o u n t r y house 2. a house i n t h e s u b u r b s * 3. a group of houses 4. a wicked person (d) A w e i g h t - l i f t e r i s : 1. a weighing-machine 2. a p e r s o n who w a t c h e s t h e i r w e i g h t * 3. a p e r s o n who l i f t s w e i g h t s 4. a l i f t i n g machine (e) A s h o v e l i s : 1. a s l i d i n g movement 2. a h i n g e d wooden p a n e l 3. a t o o l f o r weaving c l o t h * 4. a t o o l f o r d i g g i n g and moving e a r t h  the  to  do.  110  (f)  A dinner table i s : 1. t h e f u r n i t u r e on i s eaten * 2. t h e f u r n i t u r e on i s eaten 3. t h e f u r n i t u r e on 4. t h e f u r n i t u r e on  which the e a r l i e s t  meal o f t h e day  w h i c h t h e main meal o f t h e day which people s i t which people p l a y  (g) To s u n b a t h e i s : 1. t o wash i n t h e sun * 2. t o l i e o u t s t r e t c h e d i n t h e sun 3. t o p l a y i n t h e sun 4. t o t a k e a b a t h i n t h e sun (h) The 1. * 2. 3. 4.  weight of a t e n - y e a r 3 kilograms 30 k i l o g r a m s 300 kilogram's 3,000 k i l o g r a m s  old child i s :  ( i ) A marshmallow g i a n t c o u l d b e : 1. a p l a i n w h i t e woven c l o t h 2. a white s p i c y root 3. a p e r s o n d r e s s e d i n w h i t e who wanders a c r o s s t h e earth * 4. a huge f a i r y t a l e c r e a t u r e who i s d r e s s e d i n w h i t e (j)  A shag 1. a 2. a * 3. a 4. a  rug i s : k i n d of untanned l e a t h e r cormorant bird coarse carpet with a long cut p i l e smooth p l u s h c a r p e t  (k) B u i l t - i n s u n g l a s s e s a r e most l i k e l y : * 1. g l a s s e s t h a t p r o t e c t t h e e y e s w h i c h a r e " b u i l t - i n " to something 2. g l a s s e s t i n t e d t o p r o t e c t the eyes 3. g l a s s e s w i t h a " b u i l t - i n " sun 4. g l a s s e s f o r w e a r i n g i n t h e sun (1) S t u d d e d snow t i r e s a r e : 1 . t i r e s s c a t t e r e d o v e r t h e snow 2. t i r e s w h i c h need s t u d s f o r t h e snow 3. t i r e s s t u d d e d w i t h snow * 4. t i r e s w i t h s t u d s t o p r o v i d e a g r i p on t h e snow (m) A l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r 1. 4 kilograms 2. 14 k i l o g r a m s * 3. 400 k i l o g r a m s 4. 4,000 k i l o g r a m s  weighs:  111  (n) A c o z y a n i m a l i g l o o i s p r o b a b l y : 1. an i g l o o f o r c o z y a n i m a l s * 2. a c o z y a n i m a l home made o f i c e a n d snow 3. a c o z y a n i m a l home 4. a c o z y i g l o o f o r a n i m a l s (o) A c o c o o n i s : * 1. a p r o t e c t i v e c o v e r i n g made by i n s e c t l a r v a e 2. a powder made f r o m c r u s h e d s e e d s a n d r o o t s 3. a t r o p i c a l palm t r e e 4. a f u r r y a n i m a l (p) S h e r l o c k Holmes i 1. a p e r s o n who * 2. a p e r s o n who 3. a p e r s o n who 4. a p e r s o n who  *  indicates  s: i s v e r y good a t d e t e r m i n i n g l a w s i s very s k i l l e d a t detecting evidence i s good a t making d e c i s i o n s i s excellent at describing  the correct  answer  11 2  APPENDIX D - TEXT BASE TEMPLATE - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC  01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.  t h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f wombat t h e common wombat a n d t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat t h e s e wombats a r e s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n a p p e a r a n c e and l i v e i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t h a b i t a t s t h e common wombat i s t h e Lone Ranger of the f o r e s t s of Eastern A u s t r a l i a i t h a s a d a r k brown c o a t which i s t h i c k and c o a r s e and a muzzle l i k e a dog's in contrast t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat h a s , a m u z z l e a s i t s name shows c o v e r e d by t h e s h o r t f u r o f t h e f a c e i t a l s o has a f i n e s i l k y c o a t w h i c h v a r i e s i n c o l o r from g r e y - b l a c k t o y e l l o w t h i s wombat l i v e s i n wombat v i l l a g e s i n the "outback" almost t r e e l e s s of South A u s t r a l i a b o t h k i n d s o f wombat a r e b u r r o w e r s they a r e b u i l t l i k e w e i g h t - l i f t e r s with t h i c k s e t bodies short front legs and p o w e r f u l s h o u l d e r s t h e i r f r o n t paws have n a i l s l i k e small shovels w h i l e t h e i r back paws have s o f t p a d s t o d i g a burrow t h e wombat s i t s on i t s r e a r e n d and hacks out the e a r t h w i t h i t s forepaws p u s h i n g i t t o one s i d e then the animal backs out of t h e t u n n e l k i c k i n g d i r t a s i t goes A wombats burrow i s deep a n d i n some c a s e s l a r g e enough f o r a man t o c r a w l i n t o wombats come o u t o f t h e i r b u r r o w s a t n i g h t t h e wombats' d i n n e r t a b l e i s a f i e l d of g r a s s f a r m e r s have no use f o r t h e a n i m a l s b e c a u s e t h e y sometimes t e a r l a r g e h o l e s i n f e n c e s and e a t t h e c r o p s Wombats c a n o c c a s i o n a l l y be seen by day a s w e l l on warm w i n t e r d a y s , wombats o f t e n s u n b a t h e n e a r t h e o p e n i n g s t o t h e i r b u r r o w s a t these times they a r e e a s i l y caught i n the middle of winter a f e m a l e wombat g i v e s b i r t h t o one baby wombat  1 13  52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71 . 72.  or j o e y which i t c a r r i e s i n i t s pouch u n t i l i t i s l a r g e enough t o f e e d on g r a s s a wombat's pouch h a s two n i p p l e s o n l y one baby c a n l i v e even when two a r e b o r n t h e r e s i m p l y i s n ' t enough room f o r two and even w i t h one j o e y t h e pouch s c r a p e s on t h e g r o u n d a t t i m e s t h e l a r g e s t wombat grows t o be more t h a n one m e t e r and may w e i g h a s much a s a t e n - y e a r o l d c h i l d when i t i s f u l l y grown A wombat a l s o has a l a r g e head round e a r s and s m a l l e y e s i t looks stupid and grumpy but i t i s n o t a wombat i s e a s i l y tamed and b e i n g a l o n g l i v e d a n i m a l makes a good p e t  long  1 14  APPENDIX E - ORAL FREE RECALL PROTOCOL 01 . 02. 03. 06. 08. 10. 11 . 10. 12. 13. 19.  (I) (I ) (I) (E) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (T) (I )  23. 24. 25. 29. 30. 27. 33. 34. 32. 41 . 00. 42. 43. 45. 44. 50. 51 . 57. 56. 58. 58. 00. 53. 54.  (I ) (I ) (T) (E) (E) (E) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (E) (T) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (I ) (E) (E) (I ) (I )  - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC  t h e r e ' s two main k i n d s o f wombat t h e commom wombat and t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat t h e h a i r y - n o s e d wombat i s t h e Lone Ranger of E a s t e r n A u s t r a l i a and h a s a t h i c k brown coarse coat and a m u z z l e l i k e a dog's t h e h a i r y n o s e d wombat h a s a g r e y b l a c k i s h to yellow f u r and i t l i v e s i n S o u t h A u s t r a l i a and b o t h wombats a r e b u r r o w e r s and a r e b u i l t f o r b u r r o w i n g with n a i l l i k e paws and s h o r t arms t h e y s i t on t h e i r r e a r ends and hackk away a t t h e d i r t t o burrow i n and t h e y come o u t a t n i g h t usually and t h e y f e e d on g r a s s f a r m e r s have no u s e f o r them because they e a t crops and t h e y t e a r away f e n c e s in the winter t h e f e m a l e wombat g i v e s b i r t h t o one o r two but i f t h e r e ' s two o n l y one c a n l i v e b e c a u s e t h e p o u c h i s o n l y b u i l t f o r one or c a n o n l y f i t one wombat so t h e o t h e r d i e s t h e wombat l i v e s i n t h e p o u c h u n t i l i t s b i g enough t o f e e d on g r a s s  NUMBER OF IDEA UNITS RECALLED (I)  = Incidental  - 24  (E) = E v o k e d  -  7  (T) = T a r g e t  -  3  1 15  APPENDIX F ~ PROBED RECALL QUESTIONS Familiar  Metaphoric  (IF)  1.  Where do p o l a r  (F)  2.  What do p o l a r  (F)  3.  What p r o t e c t s p o l a r b e a r s ' e y e s of t h e i c e a n d snow?  (IF)  4.  How  (F)  5.  What s t o p s a p o l a r b e a r moves a c r o s s t h e i c e ?  (F)  6.  How  (IF)  7.  What d o e s a f e m a l e p o l a r summer?  (I)  8.  Why does t h e f e m a l e animal igloo?  (F)  9.  What do t h e cubs out?  (I)  10.  Why do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e c u b s do n o t l e a v e t h e i r c o c o o n u n t i l t h e y ' r e a l l f u r r e d o u t and weigh about s i x k i l o g r a m s ?  (IF)  11.  What does a mother p o l a r  (F)  12.  How  does t h e p o l a r  bear  find  baby  (I)  13.  Why d o e s t h e p o l a r S h e r l o c k Holmes?  bear  need  t o be a n o r t h e r n  (IF)  14.  What w i l l a p o l a r available?  (IF)  15.  How  (F)  = Factual  (IF)  = Incidental Factual  (I)  = Inferential  do p o l a r  bears  Text  bears  look  like?  bears t r a v e l  much c a n a p o l a r  long  live?  the glare  across thin  from  bear  from  slipping  ice? as i t  weigh? b e a r do d u r i n g t h e  polar  bear  need  a cozy  do when t h e y ' r e a l l f u r r e d  bear  can a polar  t e a c h her cubs? seals?  e a t when s e a l s a r e n o t  bear  Question Question  Question  bear  live?  1 16  Unfamiliar  Metaphoric  of coat  Text  (IF)  1.  What  kind  does t h e common wombat  (F)  2.  What  k i n d o f m u z z l e d o e s t h e common wombat  (IF)  3.  What k i n d have?  of coat  (F)  4.  What d o e s build?  i t s a y i n t h e p a s s a g e a b o u t a wombat's  (I)  5.  Why do y o u t h i n k lifters?  (F)  6.  D e s c r i b e a wombat's  (I)  7.  Why do wombats need t o have n a i l s s h o v e l s on t h e i r f r o n t paws?  (IF)  8.  What  (F)  9.  What do wombats  does the h a i r y - n o s e d  wombats a r e b u i l t front  i s a wombat's burrow  do f a r m e r s d i s l i k e  (F)  11.  What do wombats o f t e n  (IF)  12.  Where d o e s a wombat baby o r j o e y i s o l d enough t o e a t g r a s s ?  (F)  13.  How much d o e s a f u l l y  (IF)  14.  Why  (I)  15.  Why do wombats o f t e n to t h e i r burrows?  (F)  = Factual  d o e s a wombat  weight  like  small  wombats? do on warm w i n t e r  make a good  days?  until i t  weigh?  pet?  sunbathe near the openings  Question  Question  live  grown wombat  Question  = Inferential  like  eat?  Why  (I)  wombat  like?  10.  Factual  have?  paws.  (IF)  (IF) = I n c i d e n t a l  have?  1 17  APPENDIX G - MULTIPLE-CHOICE METAPHOR PROBE Familiar  Text  I n s t r u c t i o n s : P l e a s e r e a d e a c h s e n t e n c e c a r e f u l l y , and t h i n k a b o u t t h e meaning of t h e u n d e r l i n e d words. You a r e t o c h o o s e f r o m t h e p h r a s e s g i v e n below, t h e one w h i c h you t h i n k b e s t g i v e s t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e u n d e r l i n e d words. E x a m p l e : H e r e i s an example o f what you a r e r e q u i r e d (a) The new boy i n our c l a s s i s b u i l t l i k e a t a n k . 1. s h o r t and b r a v e * 2. s h o r t and v e r y s t r o n g 3. t a l l and b r a v e 4. t a l l and f u l l of c o u r a g e  (a) When f u l l y grown, t h i s marshmallow g i a n t and a h a l f m e t e r s h i g h a t t h e s h o u l d e r s , and h a l f m e t e r s l o n g f r o m nose t o t a i l . 1 . p o w e r f u l marshmallow a n i m a l 2. l e g e n d a r y white animal * 3. l a r g e white-furred animal 4. l a r g e marshmallow a n i m a l  to  do.  s t a n d s one t o one i s a b o u t two and a  (.b) P o l a r b e a r s ' w h i t e shag r u g s make them d i f f i c u l t t o see a g a i n s t t h e i c e and snow, and keep them warm i n t h e s u b - z e r o temperatures. * 1. fur coats 2. c o a r s e mats 3. p l u s h rugs 4. smooth c o a t s (c) B u i l t - i n s u n g l a s s e s o v e r t h e i r them from t h e g l a r e o f t h e i c e and 1. t i n t e d glass covers 2. g l a s s e s f o r wearing i n * 3. an e x t r a membrane 4. sunglasses b u i l t - i n to  s m a l l b l a c k eyes snow. the  protects  sun  their  skin  (d) L a r g e paws w i t h f u r between t h e p a d s g i v e p o l a r l i k e s t u d d e d snow t i r e s . 1. rubber g r i p 2. round studded g r i p ; 3. slippery grip * 4. non-slip grip  bears a  grip  1 18  (e) P o l a r b e a r s ' l e g s c a n s p r e a d wide a p a r t when t h e y walk so t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e y may w e i g h a s much a s a l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r , t h e y c a n t r a v e l a c r o s s i c e t o o t h i n t o h o l d up a man. * 1. 400 k i l o g r a m s 2. 40 k i l o g r a m s 3. 14 k i l o g r a m s 4. 4 kilograms ( f ) In t h e F a l l , the female p o l a r bear f o r h e r s e l f i n a snowy s l o p e . * 1. a den 2. a hole 3. a w i n t e r bed 4. an i g l o o  d i g s a cozy  animal  (g) By l a t e M a r c h , t h e c u b s a r e a l l f u r r e d o u t , and w e i g h s i x kilograms each. Yhey a r e then r e a d y t o l e a v e t h e i r s h e l t e r e d cocoon. 1. t o l e a v e t h e i r mother * 2. t o l e a v e t h e i r den 3. t o l e a v e the other cub 4. to leave t h e i r covering (h) T h i s n o r t h e r n S h e r l o c k Holmes c a n d e t e c t a snow c a v e p r o t e c t i n g baby s e a l s . 1. t h e bear u s u a l l y s n i f f s out 2. t h e bear sometimes s n i f f s o u t * 3. t h e b e a r i s v e r y good a t s n i f f i n g o u t 4. t h e bear can not s n i f f out  *  i n d i c a t e s t h e c o r r e c t answer  igloo  about  that i s  119  Unfamiliar  Text  I n s t r u c t i o n s : P l e a s e r e a d e a c h s e n t e n c e c a r e f u l l y , and t h i n k a b o u t t h e meaning o f t h e u n d e r l i n e d words. You a r e t o c h o o s e f r o m t h e p h r a s e s g i v e n below, t h e one w h i c h y o u t h i n k b e s t g i v e s t h e meaning o f t h e u n d e r l i n e d words. (a)  Example: Here i s an example o f what y o u a r e r e q u i r e d The new boy i n o u r c l a s s i s b u i l t l i k e a t a n k . 1. s h o r t and b r a v e * 2. s h o r t and v e r y s t r o n g 3. t a l l and b r a v e 4. t a l l and f u l l o f c o u r a g e  (a) The common wombat i s t h e Lone Ranger Eastern Australia, temperatures. * 1. l i v e s alone i n 2. i s lonely in 3. i s a l o n e l y Ranger i n 4. i s a Ranger i n  of the f o r e s t s of  (b) The common wombat has a d a r k brown c o a t c o a r s e , and a m u z z l e l i k e a d o g ' s . 1. a f u r r y pink muzzle 2. a f u r r y muzzle * 3. a b a r e b l a c k m u z z l e 4. a b a r e p i n k m u z z l e  w h i c h i s t h i c k and  (c) The h a i r y - n o s e d wombat l i v e s i n wombat v i l l a g e s almost t r e e l e s s "outback" of South A u s t r a l i a . 1. alone * 2. i n l a r g e groups 3. i n l i t t l e houses 4. i n b i g houses (d) Wombats short front 1. * 2. 3. 4.  t o do.  are built like weight-lifters, l e g s and p o w e r f u l s h o u l d e r s . thickly built strongly built b u i l t t o l i f t heavy w e i g h t s built to l i f t  with  i n the  thickset  bodies,  120  (e) Wombats' f r o n t paws have n a i l s t h e i r back paws have s o f t p a d s . 1. siiding naiIs 2. s m a l l bent n a i l s 3. long n a i l s * 4. strong curved n a i l s  like  small  shovels,  while  ( f ) The wombats' d i n n e r t a b l e i s a f i e l d o f g r a s s . 1. wombats e a t g r a s s a t a t a b l e 2. wombats f e e d on g r a s s a t t h e d i n n e r t a b l e * 3. wombats f e e d on g r a s s e s 4. a wombat's t a b l e i s made o f g r a s s (g) On warm openings to * 1. 2. 3. 4.  winter their often often often often  d a y s , wombats o f t e n s u n b a t h e near t h e burrows. l i e o u t s t r e t c h e d i n t h e sun wash i n t h e sun p l a y i n t h e sun t a k e a b a t h i n t h e sun  (h) The l a r g e s t wombat grows t o be more t h a n one meter l o n g , and may w e i g h a s much a s a t e n y e a r o l d c h i l d when i t i s f u l l y grown. 1. 3 kilograms * 2. 32 k i l o g r a m s 3. 302 k i l o g r a m s 4. 3,002 k i l o g r a m s  *  i n d i c a t e s t h e c o r r e c t answer  121  APPENDIX H - DEBRIEFING INTERVIEW SCHEDULE  (1) D i d y o u f i n d Explain.  this  passage  interesting  t o read?  (2) Was t h i s p a s s a g e e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t t e l l me why? Explain..  t o read?  (3) Was t h i s p a s s a g e e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t understand? Explain.  f o r you t o  Can y o u  (4) How much do y o u f e e l y o u know a b o u t t h e t o p i c o f t h i s p a s s a g e ; t h a t i s , b e f o r e y o u r e a d t h e p a s s a g e and and a f t e r y o u r e a d t h e p a s s a g e ?  1 22  APPENDIX I - TABLES  Table Table Table  III  - ANOVA f o r O r a l  Free  Recall  IV - ANOVA f o r P:r o b e d R e c a l l V - MANOVA f o r I n c i d e n t a l  Measures  Measures  Oral  Free  Recall  Table  VI  - MANOVA f o r E v o k e d O r a l  Free  Recall  Table  VII  - MANOVA f o r T a r g e t O r a l  Free  Recall  Table VIII Table Table  IX  - MANOVA f o r F a c t u a l  Probed  - MANOVA f o r I n c i d e n t a l  X - MANOVA f o r I n f e r e n t i a l  Recall  Factual  Probed  Probed  Recall  Recall  Table III AKOVA for Oral Free Recall Measures  df  Mean Square  F  (A) VERSION COVARIATE ERROR  1 1 43  0.14737 1.8372 0.13799  1.07 8.58  0.3072 0.0054*  (B) TOPIC B XA ERROR  1 1 44  0.01459 0.52671 0.08179  0.18 6.44  0.6748 0.0148*  (C) MEASURES C XA ERROR  2 2 88  11.66586  137. 21 0.16  0.0000* 0.8488  2 2 88  0.01353 0.70347 0.08112  Source  B XC B X C XA ERROR * p<.05  0.01397 0.08502  Tail Prob  0.17 0.8466 8.67 0.0004*  Table IV ANOVA for Probed Recall Measures  df  Mean Square  (A) VERSI.OK COVARIATE ERROR  1 1 43  0.80185 9.67118 0.81905  0.98 11.81  0.3280 0.0013*  (B) TOPIC B X A ERROR  1 1 44  5.11387 1.63440 0.50190  10.19 3.26  0.0026* 0.0780  (C) MEASURES C X A ERROR  2 2 88  5.61566 0.30257 0.30849  18.20 0.98  0.0000* 0.3791  B XC 2 2 B XC X A ERROR 88  1.80439 0.85389 C35785  5.04 2.39  0.0084* 0.0979  Source  * p<.05  F  Tail Prob  Table V MA K OVA for Incidental Oral Free Recall  Source (A) Version (B) Topic A X B  Std. Err.  T-Value  Sig. of T  .02366 .02365 .02365  -.91430 .87143 1 .17662  .363 .386 .243  Table VI MANOVA for Evoked Oral Free Recall  Source (A) Version (B) Topic A X B  Std. Err. T-Value .02029 .02028 .02028  -.64252 -.15275 -.87311  Sig. of T .522 .879 .385  Table VII MAKCVA f o r Target Oral Free R e c a l l  Source  Std. E r r .  T-Value  S i g . of T  (A) Version  .04443  -.78075  .437  (B) Topic  .04440  .09694  .923  A X B  .04440  -3.17930  * P .05  .002 *  Table VIII MANOVA for Factual Probed Recall  Source (A) Version (B) Topic A X B  Std. Err. T-Value .05674 .05671 .05671  .17502 .17117 -.57985  Sig. of T .861 .864 .564  Table IX MANOVA f o r Incidental Factual Probed Recall  Source  Std. Err. T-Value  (A) Version  .05470  -1.28621  (B) Topic A XB  .05467 .05467  2.04847 2.13237  * p<.05  Sig. of T .202 .044* .036*  Table X MANOVA  Source (A) Version (B) Topic A X B * p<.05  for Inferential Probed Recall :  Std. E r r . .09086 .09081 .09081  T-Value  Sig. of T  -1.11557 3.15664 1.62051  .268 .002* .109  

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.831.1-0078302/manifest

Comment

Related Items