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 MERCER B.A. , U n i v e r s i t y of Queensland, 1974 B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 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 Education Department We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1985 © Kay Louise Mercer, 1985 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Language E d u c a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: September 1985 i i A b s t r a c t T h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t . F o r t y - s i x seventh-grade students read e i t h e r the metaphorical or the l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of two t e x t s each c o n t a i n i n g e i g h t t a r g e t s , that i s , metaphors or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l phrases. One t e x t , "Polar Bears," d e s c r i b e d a t o p i c f a m i l i a r to the students while the other, "Wombats," d e s c r i b e d an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c . A f t e r reading each t e x t , students o r a l l y r e c a l l e d as much i n f o r m a t i o n as p o s s i b l e , and then answered o r a l probe q u e s t i o n s . Students who read the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of the t e x t s a l s o completed a w r i t t e n recognition-of-meaning t e s t as an a d d i t i o n a l measure of metaphor comprehension. There was n o . d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of the metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r comprehension of the l i t e r a l t e x t s . There was, however, a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t f o r metaphor on students' comprehension of t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n when the t o p i c of the t e x t was u n f a m i l i a r . Students were able to r e c a l l the in f o r m a t i o n conveyed by the metaphors and to reco g n i z e the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the metaphors b e t t e r from the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t than from the f a m i l i a r metaphoric t e x t . Students' a b i l i t y to answer f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s based on the metaphors, however, was no d i f f e r e n t from the f a m i l i a r t e x t than i t was from the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t . T h i s f i n d i n g was i n t e r p r e t e d as demonstrating an e f f e c t of a kind, f o r t o p i c s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the other measures of probed r e c a l l i n favour of the f a m i l i a r t o p i c . The d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s of the f r e e r e c a l l and recognition-of-meaning measures, and the probe r e c a l l measures re g a r d i n g t a r g e t comprehension were l i k e l y due to the d i f f e r e n t task c o n s t r a i n t s of these s e t s of measures. I t was noted that there i s a need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the r e l a t i o n s h i p and nature of these widely-used measures of comprehension. I t was concluded that although metaphors appear with some frequency i n b a s a l readers, metaphor i s not a troublesome aspect of language which c h i l d r e n need to be taught to analyze and to i n t e r p r e t . I f c h i l d r e n are e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s comprehending t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors, they w i l l l i k e l y b e n e f i t from c u r r i c u l u m a c t i v i t i e s designed to develop t h e i r vocabulary, t h e i r experience with language and l i t e r a t u r e , and t h e i r knowledge of the world. i v Table of Contents A b s t r a c t . . . i i L i s t of T a b l e s v L i s t of F i g u r e s v i Acknowledgement 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 5 4.1 E f f e c t Of Metaphor - 6 4.2 E f f e c t Of Topic On Metaphoric Texts 7 5. DEFINITONS OF TERMS 8 5.1 Metaphor Terminology 8 5.2 Experimental Text Terminology. 8 5.3 Comprehension Terminology .....9 6 . ASSUMPTIONS 1 0 7. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY 11 Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12 1. THEORIES OF METAPHOR 12 1.1 The S u b s t i t u t i o n Theory 13 1.2 Comparison T h e o r i e s Of Metaphor 14 1.3 The I n t e r a c t i o n Theory 18 2. METAPHOR IN CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION 21 2.1 P r o d u c t i o n 21 2.2 Comprehension 25 2.2.1 Short Context C o n d i t i o n 26 2.2.2 Long Context C o n d i t i o n 37 3. SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 47 Chapter I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 53 1. SUBJECTS 53 2. THE EXPERIMENTAL TEXTS 54 V 3. THE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS 57 3.1 The Canadian Test Of Basic S k i l l s 57 3.2 P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t 58 3.3 O r a l Free R e c a l l s 58 3.4 Probed R e c a l l Questions 59 3.5 M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probe 60 3.6 D e b r i e f i n g Interviews 60 3.7 P i l o t T e s t i n g Of The Measuring Instruments 61 4. THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 62 5. THE SCORING OF DATA 63 5.1 P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t 63 5.2 O r a l Free R e c a l l s 64 5.2.1 C o n s t r u c t i o n Of The Text Base Template 64 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 ....65 5.2.3 S c o r i n g The P r o t o c o l s 66 5.3 Probed R e c a l l Questions 66 5.4 M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probes 66 5.5 D e b r i e f i n g Interviews 67 6. THE ANALYSIS OF DATA 67 Chapter IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 68 1. EFFECT OF METAPHOR 70 2. EFFECT OF TOPIC ON METAPHORIC TEXTS 7 2 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 78 3.1 F i n d i n g Regarding The E f f e c t Of Metaphor 78 3.2 F i n d i n g s Regarding The E f f e c t Of Topic On Metaphoric 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 90 4. CONCLUSIONS .91 5. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 96 APPENDIX A - FAMILIAR TEXT 105 APPENDIX B - UNFAMILIAR TEXT 106 v i 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 121 APPENDIX I - TABLES 122 v i i L i s t of Tables I. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Experimental Texts 56 I I . Topic Means f o r Metaphoric Texts on Probed R e c a l l Measures 77 I I I . ANOVA f o r O r a l Free R e c a l l Measures , 123 IV. ANOVA f o r Probed R e c a l l Measures .124 V. MANOVA f o r I n c i d e n t a l O r a l Free R e c a l l 125 VI. MANOVA f o r Evoked O r a l Free R e c a l l 126 VI I . MANOVA f o r Target O r a l Free R e c a l l 127 V I I I . MANOVA f o r F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l 128 IX. MANOVA 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 129 X. MANOVA f o r I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l 130 v i i i L i s t of F i g u r e s 1. 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 and Topic on Target O r a l Free R e c a l l 74 2. 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 and Topic 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 76 ix Acknowledgement The completion of t h i s study was made p o s s i b l e with the a s s i s t a n c e , c o o p e r a t i o n and support of many i n d i v i d u a l s . My thanks are due: To my a d v i s o r , Marion Crowhurst, f o r her constant encouragement and i n v a l u a b l e guidance. To the members of my examining committee—Jane C a t t e r s o n and Lee Gunderson--for t h e i r support and c r i t i c i s m . To my f e l l o w graduate s t u d e n t s — C a t h e r i n e Watson, Nancy Carlman, Sydney C r a i g , Frances F i s h e r and Joan G i d e o n — f o r t h e i 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 . To members of the F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n — W a l t e r Boldt and Don A l l i s o n — m e m b e r s of the Computing C e n t r e — C a l v i n L a i and Chinh L e — a n d Graduate Student A s s i s t a n t s of the Education Research Study Centre--Bob P r o s s e r , Mike McRae and Warren Weir--fo r t h e i r a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e with r e s e a r c h design and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . To members of the Language Education Department--Roy Bent l e y , Frank Bertram and Syd B u t l e r - - f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and c r i t i c i s m . To Linda Kaser, Adrienne Downie, C a r o l Lodge, A l Z a r c h i k o f f and the students of James McKinney School and W i l l i a m Bridge School i n School D i s t r i c t #38 (Richmond) f o r t h e i r w i l l i n g c o o p e r a t i o n . To Mr. Blackmore, Mr. O'Connell and the students of S t . George's J u n i o r School 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 f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e of a r e s e a r c h grant from the E d u c a t i o n a l Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia. To my pare n t s , Doug and Rosemary Mercer, f o r t h e i r understanding and support. To my good f r i e n d , J e r r y C a r l s o n , f o r h i s i n v a l u a b l e 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. INTRODUCTION 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The present study examines the hy p o t h e s i s t h a t metaphor has a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on reading comprehension. The s p e c i f i c purpose of t h i s study i s to examine the e f f e c t s of metaphor on seventh grade-students' comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s with f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s . 2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM Since the time of P l a t o , s c h o l a r s have s p e c u l a t e d about metaphor as a l i n g u i s t i c and l i t e r a r y phenomenon (Anderson, 1964; Johnson, 1980), and v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s about i t s nature and f u n c t i o n have both developed and been d i s c a r d e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the g e n e r a l view that metaphor i s a s p e c i a l language form employed p r i m a r i l y f o r s t y l i s t i c ornamentation, was common u n t i l q u i t e r e c e n t l y (Campbell, 1975; Emig, 1972; Johnson & Malgady, 1980; P o l l i o , Barlow, F i n e & P o l l i o , 1977). A somewhat d i f f e r e n t view of metaphor now g e n e r a l l y p r e v a i l s . • S i nce the 1970's, i n t e r e s t i n f i g u r a t i v e language has exploded; the importance of metaphor i n language and t h i n k i n g has been a f f i r m e d by p h i l o s o p h e r s , l i n g u i s t s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s and educators (Honeck, 1980; Johnson & Malgady, 1980). Metaphor i s now g e n e r a l l y acknowledged as a p e r v a s i v e aspect of n a t u r a l language f u n c t i o n i n g , and one that may even be e s s e n t i a l to c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g ( A r t e r , 1976; Emig, 1972; Hoffman & Honeck, 1980; Johnson & Malgady, 1980; Ortony, 1980a; P o l l i o , Barlow, F i n e & P o l l i o , 1977; Verbrugge & M c C a r r e l l , 1977). Research i n the v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s has c e n t r e d on such 2 qu e s t i o n s as: When, where and why do people use metaphor? When and how do they understand metaphor? How does the comprehension of metaphor r e l a t e to the comprehension of l i t e r a l language? What i n s i g h t s does metaphor allow i n t o the hy p o t h e s i z e d connections between language and p e r c e p t i o n , and language and c o g n i t i o n ? (Johnson & Malgady, 1980; Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978; Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser, 1979; P o l l i o , Barlow, Fine & P o l l i o , 1977). Educators have focussed on (a) the development of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to de a l with f i g u r a t i v e language, and (b) the e f f e c t s of metaphor i n te x t on comprehension and l e a r n i n g . The present study c e n t r e s on the second of these two focuses, and i n v e s t i g a t e s the n o t i o n t h a t metaphor has "pedagogical" value f o r the reader. T h i s n o t i o n d e r i v e s from the a s s e r t i o n that metaphor a c t s as a b r i d g i n g d e v i ce between a known v e h i c l e and an unknown t o p i c . Proponents of t h i s view (e.g., Ortony, 1975; P e t r i e , 1979) c l a i m that metaphor can t r a n s f e r knowledge from the known (the v e h i c l e of the metaphor) to the new or unknown (the t o p i c of the metaphor). I t was on t h i s c l a i m that A r t e r (1976) based her hypotheses that metaphor i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s would i n c r e a s e i n t e r e s t , r e c a l l and comprehension f o r students of h i g h and low v e r b a l a b i l i t y . She f a i l e d to f i n d d e f i n i t i v e support f o r her hypotheses, but found some evidence f o r a general f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g f o r the low v e r b a l a b i l i t y group. A r t e r ' s (1976) r e s e a r c h motivated a set of s t u d i e s by Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979). Pearson et a l . (1979) conducted a s e r i e s of three 3 experiments i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of metaphor and t o p i c f a m i l i a r i t y on the a b i l i t y of t h i r d - g r a d e r s , s i x t h - g r a d e r s and undergraduates, to understand and remember t e x t . They r e p o r t three major f i n d i n g s which supported and extended A r t e r (1976). F i r s t , they found that c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s ' r e c a l l of metaphors was always as good as, and o f t e n b e t t e r than, t h e i r r e c a l l of comparable l i t e r a l paraphrases i n s i t u a t i o n s where the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors were known by the s u b j e c t s . Second, the r o l e of metaphor as a b r i d g i n g device appeared to depend upon passage f a m i l i a r i t y ; when passage content was f a m i l i a r , metaphors were no more memorable than t h e i r l i t e r a l c o u n t e r p a r t s , but when passage m a t e r i a l was l e s s f a m i l i a r , metaphors seemed to assume gr e a t e r memorability. T h i r d , they found that metaphor e f f e c t s appeared to be l i m i t e d to t h e i r s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries, because the t a r g e t idea u n i t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors d i d not e l i c i t b e t t e r r e c a l l of surrounding i n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s than d i d the t a r g e t idea u n i t s c o n t a i n i n g only the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s . The present study focuses on the second f i n d i n g made by Pearson et a l . (1979), that the r o l e of metaphor as a b r i d g i n g device appears to depend on passage f a m i l i a r i t y . The need f o r f u r t h e r study of the e f f e c t of t o p i c f a m i l i a r i t y on the hypothesized f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of metaphor a r i s e s because of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e . While A r t e r (1976) found a general f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of metaphor on l e a r n i n g f o r low v e r b a l a b i l i t y students with a te x t t h a t was unexpectedly somewhat f a m i l i a r i n t o p i c to s u b j e c t s , Pearson et_ a l . (1979) 4 found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r r e c a l l of metaphors o n l y i n t h e i r u n f a m i l i a r t e x t s . Pearson et a l . expressed some r e s e r v a t i o n s about t h e i r judgements of f a m i l i a r i t y , however, because the f i n d i n g s of the t h i r d experiment were i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the pr e v i o u s two experiments. There was unexpectedly no f a m i l i a r i t y e f f e c t f o r the r e c a l l of i n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s or f o r i n t r u s i o n s i n t o r e c a l l that were t h e m a t i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t with the t o p i c s of the passage. Pearson et a l . concluded that "....we have only begun to tap the surface of t h i s f a m i l i a r i t y i s s u e " ( p . 1 6 ) . The present study m o d i f i e s the methodology of Pearson et a l . ( 1979), by a p p l y i n g i t to a d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n and new passages. The m o d i f i c a t i o n s c o n s i s t o f : (a) a prior-knowledge p r e - t e s t to measure s u b j e c t ' s f a m i l i a r i t y with t e x t t o p i c s , and knowledge of the v e h i c l e s of the t a r g e t metaphors embedded i n the t e x t s , and (b) a paraphrase r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t (as recommended by Pearson et §_1.) to measure the comprehension of the t a r g e t metaphors,' used i n a d d i t i o n to an o r a l f r e e r e c a l l task and probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s . 3. NEED FOR THE. STUDY Metaphor occurs with some frequency i n b a s a l r e a d e r s ( A r l i n , 1978; A r t e r , 1976; Gambell & McFetridge, 1981; V a l e r i & Smith, 1983), and i n c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e (Winkeljohann, 1979). Although i t has been suggested that f i g u r a t i v e language can be a troublesome aspect of language with which students need h e l p (Asch & Nerlove, 1960; Cor b e t t , 1976; Cunningham, 1976; Emig, 1972; Gambell & McFetridge, 1981; Smith, 1973; Winkeljohann, 1979; and Winner, R o s e n t i e l & Gardner, 1976), there are s t u d i e s 5 which suggest t h a t , under c e r t a i n circumstances, metaphor may have a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on comprehension and l e a r n i n g . I f t h i s i s so, i t i s important that the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n such f a c i l i t a t i o n be i d e n t i f i e d . Whether metaphor i s of a s s i s t a n c e or a hindrance, or both under v a r y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , are qu e s t i o n s which w i l l be answered only by f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s . There i s a need f o r c o n t i n u i n g systematic i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the e f f e c t s of f i g u r a t i v e language upon reading comprehension i n e c o l o g i c a l l y v a l i d s e t t i n g s , so that recommendations from a sound t h e o r e t i c a l base can be made to 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 , and to teach e r s about c u r r i c u l u m experiences and s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g techniques that w i l l enhance c h i l d r e n ' s growing knowledge of language (Gambell.k McFetridge, 1981; M i l l e r , 1974). The present study has been designed to c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s p r o c e s s . I t s purpose i s to examine the e f f e c t s of metaphor on seventh-grade students' comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s with f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s . 4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES F o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p r e v i o u s theory and r e s e a r c h the f o l l o w i n g two c l a s s e s of n u l l hypotheses were made co n c e r n i n g : (1) the e f f e c t of metaphor, and (2) the e f f e c t of t o p i c on metaphoric t e x t s . 6 4.1 E f f e c t Of Metaphor T h i s study proposes that there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors. S p e c i f i c hypotheses are as f o l l o w s : (1) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of Target t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (2) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of 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 from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (3) The number of Evoked ideas present i n students' f r e e r e c a l l s of Metaphoric t e x t s and the number i n t h e i r r e c a l l s of L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (4) Students' probed r e c a l l of F a c t u a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (5) Students' probed r e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are 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 of Inf e r e n c e s from t a r g e t s i n Metaphoric t e x t s and the number from t a r g e t s i n L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 7 4.2 E f f e c t Of Topic On Metaphoric Texts T h i s study proposes that there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t . S p e c i f i c hypotheses are as f o l l o w s : (1) Students' fre e r e c a l l of Target t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric tex t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (2) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of 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 from the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric text are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (3) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of Evoked idea u n i t s from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric tex t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (4) Students' probed r e c a l l of F a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric tex t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (5) Students' probed r e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t are 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 of In f e r e n c e s from t a r g e t s i n F a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t s and the number from t a r g e t s i n U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (7) Students' r e c o g n i t i o n of the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Metaphor Targets from the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n of those from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 8 5. DEFINITONS OF TERMS The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s apply to terms used i n t h i s study: 5.1 Metaphor Terminology. Metaphor - the a p p l i c a t i o n of a word or phrase that p r o p e r l y belongs t o one context to a word or phrase i n a d i f f e r e n t context i n order to express meaning through 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 the r e f e r e n t s i n v o l v e d (Anderson, 1964; Gambell & Mc F e t r i d g e , 1981). For example, i n "The chairman plowed through the d i s c u s s i o n " (Black,1962), the word "plowed" i s used i n a n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l context to d e s c r i b e the chairman's " r u t h l e s s s u p p r e s s i o n of i r r e l e v a n c e and summary d i s m i s s a l of o b j e c t i o n s " ( p . 3 0 ) . Two d i s p a r a t e e n t i t i e s (the chairman's behaviour and plowing) have been compared on the b a s i s of a shared a t t r i b u t e ( t h r u s t i n g down). For the purposes of the present study, the term metaphor has been used to r e f e r to both s i m i l e s and metaphors, f o r the two appear to share a common f u n c t i o n as w e l l as a common p s y c h o l o g i c a l process by which they are comprehended ( K i n t s c h , 1974; and Ortony, I979d) V e h i c l e - the term being used m e t a p h o r i c a l l y i n a metaphor, f o r example "plowed" i n "the chairman plowed through the d i s c u s s i o n . " . The terminology developed by I. A. Richards i n 1936 f o r the a n a l y s i s of metaphors (Honeck & Hoffman, 1980) w i l l be used i n t h i s study as i t continues to be widely accepted, and has been used by many c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h e r s of metaphor (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). Richards s t a t e d that a metaphor c o n s i s t s of two terms and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between them. He c a l l e d the s u b j e c t term the t o p i c or tenor, the term being used m e t a p h o r i c a l l y the v e h i c l e , the common r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t o p i c and the v e h i c l e the ground , and the l i t e r a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of the two the t e n s i o n (Honeck & Hoffman, 1980). P r i o r Knowledge - s u b j e c t s ' knowledge of the t o p i c s of the experimental t e x t s and the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors employed i n the t e x t s as measured by the 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 or e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t y of an o b j e c t . For 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 c o a t . 5.2 Experimental Text 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 to i n s t r u c t a reader c o n c e r n i n g a c e r t a i n o b j e c t or i d e a . F a m i l i a r Text - t e x t about which s u b j e c t s have w r i t t e n f i v e or more a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s of the t e x t ' s t o p i c on the P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t . 9 U n f a m i l i a r Text - t e x t about which s u b j e c t s have w r i t t e n three or fewer a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s of the t e x t ' s t o p i c on the P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t . Metaphoric Texts - the v e r s i o n s of the f a m i l i a r and the 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 themselves are not m e t a p h o r i c a l but merely c o n t a i n metaphors. L i t e r a l Texts - the v e r s i o n s of the f a m i l i a r and the 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 t a r g e t s . Metaphor Targets - metaphors embedded i n the f a m i l i a r and the u n f a m i l i a r experimental t e x t s . L i t e r a l E q u i v a l e n t Targets - the l i t e r a l phrases s u b s t i t u t e d i n p l a c e of the metaphor t a r g e t s i n the l i t e r a l v e r s i o n of both the f a m i l i a r and the u n f a m i l i a r experimental t e x t s . 5.3 Comprehension Terminology. Comprehension - the process of understanding what has been read. T h i s process r e q u i r e s the reader to r e c o n s t r u c t the author's intended message from the t e x t , and to i n t e g r a t e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n with 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, 1981). In t h i s study, comprehension of both 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 Free R e c a l l s , Probed R e c a l l Questions and M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  Metaphor Probes. R e c a l l - the process of b r i n g i n g back from memory a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p r i o r l e a r n i n g or experience by words ( H a r r i s & Hodges, 1981). O r a l Free R e c a l l - a s u b j e c t ' s unprompted o r a l r e t e l l i n g of a t e x t j u s t read.• Idea U n i t - an i n d i v i d u a l idea which i s expressed i n a phrase or u n i t of language which seems to 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 which may be p r e d i c t e d from the 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 suggested that i n f o r m a t i o n may be encoded and r e c a l l e d i n such u n i t s ( A n g l i n & M i l l e r , 1968; Fodor & Bever, 1965; N. Johnson, 1970). Text Base Template - the l i s t of idea u n i t s d e r i v e d from a t e x t u s i n g the methodology employed by N. Johnson (1970) and Meyer and McConkie (1973) i n which a t e x t i s s u b j e c t i v e l y analyzed i n t o what seem to be the i n d i v i d u a l ideas of the t e x t . Text Base P r o t o c o l s - the l i s t of idea u n i t s d e r i v e d from a 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 r e c a l l of a t e x t . Target 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 10 c o n t a i n i n g the t a r g e t s , that i s , the metaphors or t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t statements. S u b j e c t s ' r e c a l l had to be an exact restatement or s e m a n t i c a l l y e n t a i l e d (adapted 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 exact restatements, or may i n c l u d e t e x t s p e c i f i c elements put together in new ways, or a d d i t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n that are s e m a n t i c a l l y e n t a i l e d by the t e x t (adapted from 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 are 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 in f o r m a t i o n e x t e r n a l to the t e x t , or gen e r a l statements that do not convey any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n (adapted from Drum, 1978). Probed R e c a l l Questions - q u e s t i o n s asked a f t e r the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l task i n order to 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 from the t e x t which the reader may have s t o r e d i n memory (Johnson, 1983). F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l Questions - qu e s t i o n s which focus on the 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 embedded i n the experimental t e x t s . I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l Questions - questions which focus on the f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n presented i n t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l i n which the t a r g e t s are embedded. I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l Questions - 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 to draw i n f e r e n c e s from the 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 short w r i t t e n m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e r ecognition-of-meaning t e s t designed as a supplementary measure of s u b j e c t s ' comprehension of the t a r g e t metaphors. 6. ASSUMPTIONS' Two assumptions have been made based on the c o n d i t i o n s of the study. F i r s t , the experimental t e x t s are s i m i l a r in nature and d i f f i c u l t y to those e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s employed f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes i n the classroom. Second, the r e a d a b i l i t y measures used to assess the experimental t e x t s give a c l o s e approximation of the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of the t e x t s . 11 7. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY The study was conducted with a l i m i t e d sample of a p o p u l a t i o n of grade seven c h i l d r e n from two adjacent schools i n an urban school d i s t r i c t . Thus care should be taken i f the r e s u l t s are to be g e n e r a l i z e d to other p o p u l a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y those which i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n whose n a t i v e language i s not E n g l i s h . Although the study employed t e x t s d e r i v e d from e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , the language samples are somewhat c o n t r i v e d i n that e i g h t " t a r g e t s " have been embedded i n each approximately 400 word t e x t . Thus c o n c l u s i o n s drawn on the s p e c i f i c language samples employed may not g e n e r a l i z e e a s i l y beyond these samples to broader, more n a t u r a l samples of language. As the mode of d i s c o u r s e chosen f o r the experimental t e x t s i s e x p o s i t o r y , and the e f f e c t s of metaphor may be d i f f e r e n t i n other modes ( f o r example, argument and n a r r a t i v e ) , i t may not be p o s s i b l e to g e n e r a l i z e f i n d i n g s beyond the chosen mode. With regard to the metaphor t a r g e t s themselves, the study i n v e s t i g a t e d the response of c h i l d r e n only to w r i t t e n metaphors of the " s i m i l a r i t y " type ( B i l l o w , 1975). Thus i t may not be p o s s i b l e to g e n e r a l i z e the f i n d i n g s to other forms of metaphor. 1 2 I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE Two major bodies of l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t to the present study w i l l be reviewed: f i r s t , l i t e r a t u r e on major t h e o r i e s of metaphor, and second, r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to use metaphor i n language p r o d u c t i o n and language comprehension. The former i s warranted because one of the major c r i t i c i s m s of much of the metaphor r e s e a r c h i s that an adequate t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s a metaphor i s l a c k i n g . As to the second, although the purpose of t h i s study i s to examine the e f f e c t s of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t , s t u d i e s examining the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to produce metaphor have a l s o been reviewed because an i n i t i a l r e a d i n g of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d an apparent paradox: that c h i l d r e n seem to be able to produce metaphor at an e a r l y age, but are unable to comprehend metaphor u n t i l c l o s e to adolescence. 1. THEORIES OF METAPHOR Since the 1970's there has been an e x p l o s i o n of i n t e r e s t i n f i g u r a t i v e language as educators, l i n g u i s t s , p h i l o s o p h e r s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s have r e a l i z e d that metaphor p l a y s a f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n language and t h i n k i n g than had p r e v i o u s l y been acknowledged (Honeck, 1980; Johnson & Malgady, 1980). Honeck (1980) d e s c r i b e s a " f l u r r y of a c t i v i t y " and suggests that i t was caused i n p a r t by the change of emphasis w i t h i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n from l i n g u i s t i c competence to communicative performance. Three major t h e o r i e s of metaphor which have been proposed 1 3 over the c e n t u r i e s to e x p l a i n the nature and f u n c t i o n of metaphor and thought i n language (Baldwin, Luce & Readance, 1 9 8 2 ) — t h e S u b s t i t u t i o n theory, the Comparison theory, and the I n t e r a c t i o n t h e o r y - - i l l u s t r a t e the changing view of metaphor, and a l s o r e f l e c t the language and focus of the d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s ranging from e d u c a t i o n a l psychology to l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ( A r t e r , 1976). 1.1 The S u b s t i t u t i o n Theory The S u b s t i t u t i o n theory of metaphor i s the t r a d i t i o n a l view of metaphor. I t a s s e r t s that a metaphor i s a d i r e c t s u b s t i t u t i o n of a n o n - l i t e r a l phrase f o r a l i t e r a l phrase that has e x a c t l y the same meaning (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978) f o r e i t h e r of two reasons: l e x i c a l n e c e s s i t y ( f o r example, c o i n i n g a term f o r a new c o n c e p t ) , or s t y l i s t i c p r e f e r e n c e ( f o r example, ornamental embellishment of a t e x t ) (Black, 1962). Metaphor i s thus seen as important to communication. No c o g n i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e i s a t t a c h e d to i t s f u n c t i o n . The S u b s t i t u t i o n theory has been c r i t i c i z e d f o r a number of reasons. M i l l e r (1976) i s c r i t i c a l of the use of metaphor for s t y l i s t i c reasons, and c l a i m s that such metaphors are " o f t e n used i n a m i s l e a d i n g way to p l a y upon the emotions or to c a r r y an argument by means of d i s t o r t i o n and overemphasis" (p.174). Verbrugge (1980) d i s c u s s e s three major inadequacies of the S u b s t i t u t i o n view of metaphor. F i r s t , Verbrugge (1980) s t a t e s that the S u b s t i t u t i o n view t r e a t s metaphor as a form inca p a b l e of semantic p r e c i s i o n ; t h a t i s , a sentence c o n t a i n i n g a metaphor cannot mean what i t " r e a l l y " says. Second, Verbrugge 14 (1980) notes that the S u b s t i t u t i o n view underrates the degree of r e s t r a i n t on the content of a metaphor; that i s , f o r a metaphor to be understood, the s u b s t i t u t e d or i n t r u d i n g word must e l i c i t a high frequency a s s o c i a t e of the surrounding c o n t e x t . T h i r d , Verbrugge (1980) maintains that the S u b s t i t u t i o n view, i n proposing only two uses f o r metaphor f o r the purposes of communication, s e r i o u s l y underrates the range of f u n c t i o n s which a metaphor may serve. The Comparison theory of metaphor was proposed to overcome these l i m i t a t i o n s (Black, 1979). 1.2 Comparison Theories Of Metaphor. The Comparison view of metaphor i s regarded as a s p e c i a l case of the S u b s t i t u t i o n view (Black, 1979) and, l i k e the S u b s t i t u t i o n view, does not a t t r i b u t e any c o g n i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e to metaphor (Johnson, 1980). The Comparison t h e o r i s t s b e l i e v e that a metaphor i s an i m p l i c i t comparison (Ortony, 1980a), or an e l l i p t i c a l s i m i l e (Black, 1962). They a s s e r t that the meaning of a metaphor i s e q u i v a l e n t to a l i t e r a l a s s e r t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s common to both the t o p i c and the v e h i c l e of the metaphor (Verbrugge, 1980). Black (1962) p r o v i d e s the f o l l o w i n g example: "The chairman plowed through the d i s c u s s i o n , " which i n v o l v e s the comparison of two d i s p a r a t e o b j e c t s — t h e t o p i c (the chairman's behaviour) and the v e h i c l e (.plowing)—on the b a s i s of a shared a t t r i b u t e ( t h r u s t i n g down) to d e s c r i b e the chairman's " r u t h l e s s s u ppression of i r r e l e v a n c e and summary d i s m i s s a l of o b j e c t i o n s " (p.30). The e a r l i e s t proponent of a Comparison theory of metaphor was A r i s t o t l e . One of h i s major c o n t r i b u t i o n s was h i s b e l i e f 1 5 that metaphor i s c o n s t r u c t e d on the p r i n c i p l e s of analogy (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). A l a t e r proponent, Bre a l (1897-1964), b e l i e v e d t h a t metaphor i s a b a s i c component of language use and not a mere ornament as A r i s t o t l e b e l i e v e d . B r e a l ' s major c o n t r i b u t i o n s were h i s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t metaphor i s a c r u c i a l v e h i c l e f o r language change, and t h a t t h e r e i s an important d i f f e r e n c e between what he termed " n o v e l " and " f r o z e n " metaphors. B r e a l ' s t h e s i s was expanded by Embler, who i n 1966 suggested that metaphor i s an e s s e n t i a l t r a n s p o r t e r of meaning in language (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). More cur r e n t proponents of the Comparison view of metaphor i n c l u d e Campbell (1975) who sees metaphor as an i m p l i c i t oxymoron, and P o l l i o , Barlow, F i n e and P o l l i o (1977) who a s s e r t t h a t metaphor i s "a l i n g u i s t i c device which makes an e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t c o n j u n c t i o n or comparison between two i d e a s ; i d e a s that share some common, though o f t e n h i g h l y i m a g i n a t i v e f e a t u r e " (p.37). The Comparison view of metaphor has engendered a wide v a r i e t y of v a l u a b l e p s y c h o l o g i c a l and l i n g u i s t i c models which have sought to e x p l a i n the process i n v o l v e d i n the comprehension of metaphor. Verbrugge (1980) prese n t s t h r e e major types of models: the " f e a t u r a l models" (Leech, 1969; Malgady & Johnson, 1976; and Matthews, 1971) which propose mechanisms f o r d e t e c t i n g common f e a t u r e s between p a i r s of terms or con c e p t s ; the "i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g models" (Sternberg, 1977) which d e s c r i b e a process of matching p r o p e r t i e s i n the compared domains; and the " p r o p o s i t i o n a l models" ( K i n t s c h , 1974; Mack, 1975; and M i l l e r , 1979) which t r e a t metaphor as a condensed a s s e r t i o n , and 16 r e q u i r e the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the u n d e r l y i n g p r o p o s i t i o n which was t r u n c a t e d on the way to the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e . The Comparison view has been adopted by the m a j o r i t y of r e s e a r c h e r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g metaphor. Nonetheless, i t has r e c e i v e d c r i t i c i s m . Black (1962) s t a t e s that the Comparison view " s u f f e r s from a vagueness that borders on v a c u i t y " (p.37). Black b e l i e v e s that a m etaphorical statement i s not a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a formal comparison, but has i t s own d i s t i n c t i v e c a p a c i t i e s and achievements. S i m i l a r l y , Johnson (1980) a s s e r t s that s i n c e any two t h i n g s are s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s , the Comparison view can never e x p l a i n what i s i n t e r e s t i n g and important about metaphor. S t i l l f u r t h e r support f o r t h i s argument i s given by Verbrugge (1980). He s t a t e s that the Comparison approach f a i l s to account f o r metaphors that " l e a d a comprehender to understand a t o p i c i n a novel f a s h i o n " (p.100). Ortony (1980a) r e p l i e s to some of these c r i t i c i s m s by s t a t i n g t h a t they are v a l i d only i n the face of a very naive v e r s i o n of the Comparison view. Ortony proposes a M o d i f i e d Comparison theory which suggests a more c a u t i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p between metaphors and comparisons. Ortony (1980a) d e f i n e s metaphor as "any c o n t e x t u a l l y anomalous u t t e r a n c e , intended to be such by a speaker or w r i t e r , t h a t has the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that the t e n s i o n (or 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 ) i s , i n p r i n c i p l e , e l i m i n a b l e " (p.352). Ortony (1980b) notes, however, that a metaphor i s not j u s t a l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y , but more a general c o g n i t i v e e n t i t y which c o u l d be e n t e r t a i n e d i n thought, and need not n e c e s s a r i l y be r e a l i z e d i n 17 language. " I t i s not l i n g u i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n s themselves that are metaphors, but p a r t i c u l a r uses of them" (Ortony, 1979c, p.9). With regard to comprehending metaphor, Ortony s t a t e s that the making of comparisons i s a component of the comprehension process, r a t h e r than the end r e s u l t of the process (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). Ortony (1979c) b e l i e v e s that i n t e r p r e t i n g metaphor i n v o l v e s r e c o g n i t i o n of a c o n t e x t u a l anomaly, r e c o g n i t i o n that the anomaly i s a n o n l i t e r a l s i m i l a r i t y statement, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of matching a t t r i b u t e s from the t o p i c and v e h i c l e , and f i n a l l y , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s a l i e n t a t t r i b u t e s . With regard to the r o l e of metaphor i n language, Ortony (1975) argues that metaphor i s more than j u s t a l i t e r a r y s t y l i s t i c d e v i c e . Ortony maintains that metaphor i s an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t of communication, and consequently can be of great e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e . Ortony (1975) prese n t s three important f u n c t i o n s of metaphor to support t h i s c l a i m . The f i r s t , the I n e x p r e s s i b i l i t y t h e s i s , c l a i m s that metaphors are a means of e x p r e s s i n g t h i n g s that are not l i t e r a l l y e x p r e s s i b l e ; f o r example, new s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p t i o n s do not n e c e s s a r i l y come with ready made l i t e r a l language to express them. The second, the Compactness t h e s i s , c l a i m s that metaphors can t r a n s f e r l a r g e "chunks" of i n f o r m a t i o n i n cases f o r which e i t h e r no l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s are a v a i l a b l e or attempted l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s would be t e d i o u s l y wordy; f o r example, "he d i v e d i n t o the i c y water l i k e a f e a r l e s s w a r r i o r " conveys a host of a t t r i b u t e s i n c l u d i n g bravery, s t r e n g t h , f e a r l e s s n e s s , a g g r e s s i v e n e s s and 18 d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The t h i r d , the V i v i d n e s s t h e s i s , c l a i m s that metaphors are p a r t i c u l a r l y v i v i d or imageable "because of t h e i r p r o x i m i t y t o , and p a r a s i t i c u t i l i z a t i o n of p e r c e i v e d experience; by circumventing d i s c r e t i z a t i o n , they enable the communication of ideas (emotive, sensory, and c o g n i t i v e ) with a r i c h n e s s of d e t a i l much l e s s l i k e l y t o come about i n the normal course of events" (p.50). Ortony (1975) c l a i m s these three f u n c t i o n s g i v e metaphor i t s great e d u c a t i o n a l u t i l i t y f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the v i v i d imagery r e s u l t i n g from metaphor comprehension encourages memorability, a more p e r s o n a l and i n s i g h t f u l understanding, and t h e r e f o r e g r e a t e r l e a r n a b i l i t y . Second, metaphor can be used to supplement knowledge or to d e s c r i b e u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s because metaphor allows a l e a r n e r to move from the w e l l known (the v e h i c l e of the metaphor) to the unknown (the t o p i c ) . For example, "The atom i s a m i n i a t u r e s o l a r system" (Petrie,1979) allows a student to come to a b e t t e r understanding of the unknown t o p i c (atom) by a t t r i b u t i n g to i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the known v e h i c l e (the s o l a r system). 1.3 The I n t e r a c t i o n Theory The I n t e r a c t i o n theory was developed i n response to the p e r c e i v e d weaknesses of the Comparison theory ( S e a r l e , 1979; Verbrugge, 1980). The approach, f i r s t proposed by I. A. Richards i n 1936 (Black, 1979), seeks to demonstrate that metaphor i s not only important i n communication, but may a l s o be e s s e n t i a l to c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s (Johnson, 1980). The I n t e r a c t i o n view a s s e r t s that although metaphors can be 19 s u b s t i t u t e s f o r l i t e r a l statements, and can be comparisons between o b j e c t s or ideas, the " p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g metaphors r e a l l y i n v o l v e more" (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978, p.923). A good metaphor can r e l a t e the thoughts present c o n c e r n i n g two s u b j e c t s i n such a way as to produce a meaning that i s new, and which transcends both ( A r t e r , 1976). Black (1962) e x p l i c a t e s more c l e a r l y the ideas of Richards (Honeck, 1980). He maintains that a metaphor f u n c t i o n s i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. Both the t o p i c ( " p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t " ) and the v e h i c l e ( " s u b s i d i a r y s u b j e c t " ) have systems of " a s s o c i a t e d i m p l i c a t i o n s , " that i s , commonplace c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s , p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s , and unusual c o n n o t a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by the w r i t e r . The metaphor " s e l e c t s , emphasizes, suppresses and o r g a n i z e s f e a t u r e s of the p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t by implying statements about i t t h a t normally apply to the s u b s i d i a r y s u b j e c t " (pp.44-45). Thus the metaphor a c t s l i k e a f i l t e r , and c r e a t e s a s i m i l a r i t y which becomes an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework or schema f o r d e v e l o p i n g new meanings (Honeck, 1980). Other proponents of the I n t e r a c t i o n view i n c l u d e Haynes (1975) who maintains that there are two d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of metaphor not d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e grammatically: the comparison l e v e l and the i n t e r a c t i o n l e v e l ; and Wheelwright ( c i t e d i n Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978) who s i m i l a r l y analyzed metaphor i n t o two component types a c c o r d i n g to f u n c t i o n : "epiphor" (expresses a s i m i l a r i t y ) and "diaphor" (produces a new meaning by j u x t a p o s i t i o n ) . Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r (1978) argue, however, that 20 I n t e r a c t i o n metaphors c o u l d be handled by the Comparison theory, and suggest that the "eureka" aspect r e f e r r e d to by Haynes (1975) to d e s c r i b e the new i n s i g h t s p o s s i b l e at the i n t e r a c t i v e l e v e l , "...may r e a l l y be only the r e s u l t of d i s c o v e r i n g what the r e a l v e h i c l e or t o p i c of the metaphor i s " (p.924). For example, i n regard to the metaphor, "He d i v e d i n t o the i c y water l i k e a f e a r l e s s w a r r i o r " (Ortony, 1975), the Comparison theory a s s e r t s t h a t the reader w i l l take a l l the a s p e c t s known to be p e c u l i a r to f e a r l e s s w a r r i o r s which c o u l d reasonably be a p p l i e d to a d i v i n g swimmer (e.g., s t r e n g t h , r e s o l u t e n e s s , courage e t c . ) , and p r e d i c a t e the e n t i r e set of them to the swimmer. In c o n t r a s t , the I n t e r a c t i o n theory (Haynes, 1975) a s s e r t s that although t h i s p r e d i c a t i o n or t r a n s f e r e n c e of s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s does occur, what i s more important i s the f e e l i n g of " e u r e k a " — t h e " c l i c k of comprehension that occurs a f t e r the comparison i s made" (p.274)--which i n v o l v e s the f o r m u l a t i n g of " e x p e r i m e n t a l l y f e r t i l e hypotheses" based on the comparison. Ortony (1976) r e p l i e s to Haynes' c r i t i c i s m s , and notes that the I n t e r a c t i v e l e v e l i s an aspect of comprehension not r e s t r i c t e d to metaphor. Ortony contends that t h i s process of making i n f e r e n c e s extends to language comprehension i n g e n e r a l , and to c o g n i t i o n as a whole. Ortony concludes that i t i s the process of comparison by which a metaphor i s comprehended that i s of c e n t r a l concern. C e r t a i n l y , the I n t e r a c t i o n view has not i n s p i r e d as much experimental or t h e o r e t i c a l work as the Comparison view has done (Verbrugge, 1980). 21 2. METAPHOR IN CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION In the recent e x p l o s i o n of i n t e r e s t i n f i g u r a t i v e language and i t s use, educators, l i n g u i s t s , p h i l o s o p h e r s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s have a s s e r t e d the importance of metaphor i n language and t h i n k i n g . Metaphor i s now g e n e r a l l y acknowledged to be a p e r v a s i v e aspect of n a t u r a l language f u n c t i o n i n g . C h i l d r e n ' s use of metaphor may be c a t e g o r i z e d as p r o d u c t i v e , that i s , t h e i r use of metaphor i n o r a l and w r i t t e n language, or r e c e p t i v e , that i s , t h e i r a b i l i t y t o comprehend metaphor. While c h i l d r e n are able to produce metaphor at an e a r l y age, i t has seemed from much of the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t they are unable to comprehend metaphor u n t i l c l o s e to adolescence. Recent rese a r c h suggests, however, that c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to comprehend metaphor begins e a r l i e r than h i t h e r t o supposed, and that t h e i r success i n comprehension i s a f f e c t e d by a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r s such as reading a b i l i t y , l e x i c a l development, g e n e r a l knowledge, exposure to l i t e r a r y conventions, c o n t e x t u a l c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d i n g d i s c o u r s e type, t o p i c and le n g t h , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , knowledge of the v e h i c l e of a given metaphor. 2.1 Pro d u c t i o n S t u d i e s of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to produce metaphor have examined both o r a l and w r i t t e n language ( P o l l i o & P o l l i o , 1974) and have compared use i n language pr o d u c t i o n with a b i l i t y to comprehend (Gardner, K i r c h e r , Winner & Perkins, 1974; Winner, R o s e n t i e l & Gardner, 1976). ~~ P o l l i o and P o l l i o (1974) were concerned with determining c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to use f i g u r a t i v e language i n o r a l and 22 w r i t t e n c o n t e x t s . One hundred and seventy-four c h i l d r e n i n grades t h r e e , four and f i v e were asked to complete three t a s k s . In the Composition task, the c h i l d r e n wrote compositions on one of f i v e given t o p i c s . I t was found that c h i l d r e n produced a gre a t e r number of frozen than novel f i g u r e s , and that the abs o l u t e l e v e l of usage decreased over s u c c e s s i v e grades. In the M u l t i p l e - s e n t e n c e s task, the c h i l d r e n wrote as many sentences as p o s s i b l e , u s i n g as many d i f f e r e n t meanings of that word as p o s s i b l e , f o r f i v e s i n g l e words (many of which were d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms used by Asch and Nerlove (1960)). I t was found that c h i l d r e n produced more froze n than novel f i g u r e s , and that both showed a marked decrease over s u c c e s s i v e grades. In the Comparisons task, the c h i l d r e n were presented with three word p a i r s and asked to pro v i d e o r a l l y , as many s i m i l a r i t i e s as p o s s i b l e . I t was found that f i g u r a t i v e language p r o d u c t i o n i n c r e a s e d over s u c c e s s i v e grades, and that the c h i l d r e n used more novel than frozen f i g u r e s . The rese a r c h e r s s t a t e d t h a t , taken as a whole, the r e s u l t s supplement the c o n c l u s i o n s reached by Asch and Nerlove (1960) who i n v e s t i g a t e d the developmental course of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to understand and e x p l a i n metaphor ( d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms). P o l l i o and P o l l i o concluded that c h i l d r e n are able to use f i g u r a t i v e language w e l l before they can e x p l a i n the exact nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p l i n k i n g elements of a f i g u r e . Gardner, K i r c h e r , Winner and Perk i n s (1974) i n v e s t i g a t e d the c a p a c i t i e s of c h i l d r e n ( e i g h t y - f o u r at each of four age l e v e l s - - 7 , 11, 14, and 19 years--and f o r t y - s e v e n p r e s c h o o l 23 c h i l d r e n ) to produce a p p r o p r i a t e "metaphorical l i n k s , " and to d i s c r i m i n a t e among metaphors of v a r y i n g a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , by having them (1) o r a l l y produce an ending, and (2) choose one of four endings to a s e r i e s of e i g h t e e n very short incomplete s t o r i e s presented o r a l l y . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a tendency, i n c r e a s i n g with age, towards p r e f e r e n c e f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e metaphor, which the r e s e a r c h e r s suggested may be a t t r i b u t e d to " . . . i n c r e a s e d c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , more i n t i m a t e acquaintance with the l i t e r a r y medium, and a t a s t e f o r m a t e r i a l s which are l e s s f a m i l i a r and more i n t e r e s t i n g " (p.140). In c o n t r a s t , however, c o n v e n t i o n a l metaphors predominated i n the s u b j e c t s ' o r a l p r o d u c t i o n s , and a p p r o p r i a t e metaphors were r a r e l y produced by s u b j e c t s of any age group. T h i s , the r e s e a r c h e r s suspected, was due to "...some f a c t o r ( s ) i n the developmental or e d u c a t i o n a l process (which) m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t the p r o d u c t i o n of o r i g i n a l and m e t a p h o r i c a l endings" (p.140). Winner, R o s e n t i e l and Gardner (1976) examined the a b i l i t y of 180 c h i l d r e n at s i x age l e v e l s (medians of 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14 years) to produce, comprehend and e x p l a i n metaphorical language. They p o s t u l a t e d four l e v e l s of m e t a p h o r i c a l comprehension r e l a t e d t o age: magical (accepted at face v a l u e ) , metonymic ( 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 terms), p r i m i t i v e (focus on i n c i d e n t a l aspects of the terms), and genuine (focus on the a p p r o p r i a t e aspects of the terms). S u b j e c t s were asked to complete two tasks (a s e l e c t i o n t ask, and a p r o d u c t i o n or e x p l i c a t i o n task) upon h e a r i n g simple sentences c o n t a i n i n g metaphors. The r e s e a r c h e r s contended that the r e s u l t s of both 24 t a s k s , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the r e s u l t s of p r i o r r e s e a r c h , supported the hyp o t h e s i z e d sequence of stages i n the development of metaphor comprehension. The order of a c q u i s i t i o n i s : spontaneous p r o d u c t i o n of metaphor, f o l l o w e d by comprehension, and f i n a l l y by the a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n the r a t i o n a l e of a metaphor which r e q u i r e s a m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness that only emerges i n preadolescence. Ortony, Reynolds and A r t e r (1978) suggest, however, that the r e s u l t s do not n e c e s s a r i l y e s t a b l i s h that younger c h i l d r e n cannot p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t metaphors. They note that i n the s e l e c t i o n task there may have been a response b i a s i n favour of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t with the kinds of s t o r i e s c h i l d r e n read, f o r i t i s common knowledge that as readers grow o l d e r , the nature of the t e x t s they encounter changes. S p e c i f i c a l l y , young readers are exposed to a much high e r p r o p o r t i o n of f a i r y s t o r i e s and "magical worlds" than are o l d e r r e a d e r s . Thus i t would be c o n s i s t e n t with much of t h e i r experience f o r young c h i l d r e n to s e l e c t a magical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a given metaphor (Ortony, 1980a; Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). The r e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s suggest that c h i l d r e n can spontaneously produce metaphors by p r e s c h o o l age (Winner, R o s e n t i e l & Gardner, 1976), and t h a t t h e i r o r a l p r o d u c t i o n s and p r e f e r e n c e f o r novel metaphors i n c r e a s e with m a t u r i t y (Gardner, K i r c h e r , Winner & P e r k i n s , 1974; P o l l i o & P o l l i o , 1974). These i n c r e a s e s appear to p a r a l l e l t h e i r growing c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and knowledge of the world and of l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s . In 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 25 productions of metaphor seem to decrease i n q u a n t i t y with age; moreover, the m a j o r i t y of metaphors produced are f r o z e n or co n v e n t i o n a l f i g u r e s (Gardner, K i r c h e r , Winner & P e r k i n s , 1974; P o l l i o & P o l l i o , 1974). 2.2 Comprehension In r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s examining c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to comprehend metaphor, metaphors have been presented e i t h e r i n minimal c o n t e x t s , that i s as s i n g l e words or i n short phrases and sentences, or i n longer c o n t e x t s , that i s embedded w i t h i n passages or t e x t s . Length of context has been found to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon readers' comprehension of metaphor. Ortony, S c h a l l e r t , Reynolds and Antos (1978) a s s e r t t h a t , i n ge n e r a l , f i g u r a t i v e language i s processed i n much the same way as i s . l i t e r a l language, and what determines the d i f f i c u l t y of p r o c e s s i n g 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 of c o n t e x t . Ortony e_t a l . found that t a r g e t s r e q u i r i n g a me t a p h o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n under c o n d i t i o n s of minimal c o n t e x t u a l support took longer to be understood than those r e q u i r i n g l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , but that the d i f f e r e n c e disappeared when context l e n g t h was i n c r e a s e d . They suggest t h a t , i n the short context c o n d i t i o n , fewer schemata can be a c t i v a t e d so that a reader can generate only vague e x p e c t a t i o n s which are i n s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c f o r a h y p o t h e s i s / t e s t process to be e f f e c t i v e . F u r t h e r support f o r t h i s argument i s o f f e r e d by Osgood (1980) who s t a t e s that young c h i l d r e n ' s i n a b i l i t y to comprehend b r i e f m e taphorical sentences may be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of " i n s u f f i c i e n t 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 phrases" (p. 232). In view of the e f f e c t of context l e n g t h , s t u d i e s i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review have been c a t e g o r i z e d as e i t h e r Short Context or Long Context. 2.2.1 Short Context C o n d i t i o n One of the f i r s t s y stematic o b s e r v a t i o n s of the development of f i g u r a t i v e language comprehension was a study by Asch and Nerlove (1960) who were i n t e r e s t e d i n t r a c i n g the development of c h i l d r e n ' s use and understanding of d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms; that i s , terms which r e f e r both to the p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of o b j e c t s , and to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of people, f o r example, hard, crooked, warm and sweet. The c h i l d r e n , ranging i n age from three to twelve y e a r s , were i n d i v i d u a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d regarding the meaning of a l i m i t e d number of d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a r e g u l a r developmental course, with c h i l d r e n mastering the o b j e c t r e f e r e n c e of the double-f u n c t i o n terms f i r s t . The c h i l d r e n then a c q u i r e d the p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense, independent of the o b j e c t r e f e r e n c e ; that i s , although the c h i l d r e n understood the a p p l i c a t i o n of the terms to persons, they had great d i f f i c u l t y i n f o r m u l a t i n g a connection with the p h y s i c a l meanings. They c o u l d not see the r e l a t i o n between the s e v e r a l meanings of a word. The dual pr o p e r t y of the d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms was r e a l i z e d l a s t , and then not spontaneously as a r u l e . The o l d e r c h i l d r e n i n the study were o f t e n not aware of the r e l a t i o n s of the double-f u n c t i o n terms, but once t h e i r a t t e n t i o n was focused, they were q u i t e capable of r e a l i z i n g them and e x p l a i n i n g them. A major c r i t i c i s m of t h i s study i s that although Asch and 27 Nerlove c l a i m they were i n v e s t i g a t i n g metaphorical t h i n k i n g , i t c o u l d be argued that they were not, s i n c e the terms s e l e c t e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u l d a l l be c l a s s i f i e d as " f r o z e n " metaphors ( P o l l i o , Barlow, Fine & P o l l i o , 1977). I f the terms were le a r n e d as separate l e x i c a l items by the c h i l d r e n , one would expect the p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaning to develop l a t e r , as a matter of course. (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). A c c o r d i n g l y , Ortony (1980a) maintains t h a t the r e s u l t s c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of an "impoverished understanding of the nature and s u b t l e t i e s of human p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s " (p.353), and a s s e r t s t h a t the study says no more about the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to understand n o n l i t e r a l uses of language than i t does about t h e i r a b i l i t y t o understand l i t e r a l uses. A second problem i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g Asch and Nerlove's r e s u l t s l i e s i n the nature of the task used. The c h i l d r e n were not asked to demonstrate t h e i r a b i l i t y to produce or comprehend the d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n terms independent of t h e i r a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n them. I t i s widely accepted concerning language development that use precedes e x p l i c a t i o n ( P o l l i o , Barlow, Fine & P o l l i o , 1977), thus the i n a b i l i t y of the younger c h i l d r e n to analyze and e x p l a i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s might have been expected. Gardner (1974), who had noted the apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the a b i l i t y of young c h i l d r e n to use f i g u r a t i v e language spontaneously, 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 that m e t a p h o r i c a l speech emerges on l y at a l a t e r age, sought to determine whether the a b i l i t y to make metaphorical l i n k s c o u l d be found i n p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Gardner proposed that the 28 a b i l i t y to p r o j e c t " s e t s of antonymous or 'polar' a d j e c t i v e s whose l i t e r a l d e n o t a t i o n w i t h i n a domain (sensory modality or other coherent system) i s known onto a domain where they are not o r d i n a r i l y employed" (p.85) c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a demonstration of metaphorical c a p a c i t y . Using, a d j e c t i v e s , s i m i l a r to Asch and Nerlove's (1960) double f u n c t i o n terms ( f o r example, h a r d - s o f t , warm-cold, l o u d - q u i e t , happy-sad, and l i g h t - d a r k ) , Gardner had one hundred and one c h i l d r e n i n four age groups (mean ages 3.5, 7, 11.5, and 19 years) match terms to cross-modal domains. That i s , each p a i r of p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s was to be matched by the s u b j e c t s with a p a i r of elements drawn from the f i v e domains; f o r example, the v i s u a l - a b s t r a c t domain i n v o l v e d a c h o i c e of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of dense t h i c k l i n e s , and sparse t h i n l i n e s , f o r l o u d - q u i e t , while the t a c t i l e domain i n v o l v e d a block of metal and a block of wood f o r cold-warm. The f i n d i n g s of the study demonstrated that although there was a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease in the number of e r r o r s made with i n c r e a s i n g age--except t h a t f o r the two o l d e s t groups d i f f e r e n c e s were almost n o n e x i s t e n t — t h e p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n c o u l d make metaphorical a s s o c i a t i o n s as w e l l as the a d u l t s c o u l d , p r o v i d e d the c ontents of the metaphors l a y w i t h i n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e . Gardner concluded that the b a s i c components of m e t a p h o r i c a l thought have developed by the f o u r t h year of l i f e . One problem with the study i s t h a t the experiment i n v o l v e d a f o r c e d - c h o i c e response between only two p o s s i b l e elements, which may have unduly a f f e c t e d the s u b j e c t s ' responses ( P o l l i o , Barlow, Fine & P o l l i o , 1977). Second, the d i s t i n c t i o n of a 29 " r i g h t " or "wrong" metaphorical matching may not have been a p p r o p r i a t e with such a range of s u b j e c t s . "What may be a 'wrong' match f o r an a d u l t may be a ' r i g h t ' match f o r a c h i l d " ( P o l l i o et §_1. , 1977; p. 165). F i n a l l y , as i n the Asch and Nerlove (i960) study, the metaphors themselves i n v o l v e d frozen terms which may have been l e a r n e d as vocabulary items. There i s , t h e r e f o r e , a p o s s i b l e confounding between m e t a p h o r i c a l c a p a c i t y , and response to p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d word a s s o c i a t i o n s (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978; P o l l i o et a l . , 1977). B i l l o w (1975) i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between comprehension of metaphor and c o g n i t i v e development as measured by two P i a g e t i a n tasks with f i f t y boys, aged f i v e to t h i r t e e n , i n i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s . The f i r s t phase of h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n sought to determine whether there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i m i l a r i t y metaphor comprehension and the achievement of concrete o p e r a t i o n s , that i s , the a b i l i t y to make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s based on c l a s s i n c l u s i o n . The c h i l d r e n were r e q u i r e d to t e l l the meaning of twelve sentences c o n t a i n i n g s i m i l a r i t y metaphors, that i s , ones which i n v o l v e d the comparison of two or more d i s p a r a t e o b j e c t s or ideas on the b a s i s of a shared a t t r i b u t e , f o r example, "Hair i s s p a g h e t t i . " The metaphors used, a l l e n t a i l e d o b j e c t s with t a n g i b l e or r e l a t i v e l y c o n c r e t e q u a l i t i e s . The f i n d i n g s demonstrated that c h i l d r e n as young as f i v e years were able, to i n t e r p r e t the s i m i l a r i t y metaphors c o r r e c t l y . The second phase of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n sought to determine whether there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the comprehension of 30 p r o p o r t i o n a l metaphors and proverbs and the achievement of formal o p e r a t i o n a l reasoning, that i s , the a b i l i t y t o make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s based on p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y . The s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to t e l l the meaning of twelve sentences c o n t a i n i n g p r o p o r t i o n a l metaphors and proverbs, and to complete a c o m b i n a t o r i a l reasoning task u s i n g four c o l o u r e d c i r c l e s . B i l l o w c l a s s i f i e d p r o p o r t i o n a l metaphors as those i n which four or more elements are compared, not d i r e c t l y , but p r o p o r t i o n a l l y . For example, i n "my head i s an apple without any c o r e " , the "three s t a t e d elements must be complemented by an i m p l i e d f o u r t h to form the p r o p o r t i o n : ( h e a d : a p p l e ) : ( b r a i n : c o r e ) " (p.415). B i l l o w found t h a t b e t t e r r e s u l t s on the c o m b i n a t o r i a l reasoning task were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with an a b i l i t y to i n t e r p r e t the p r o p o r t i o n a l metaphors, and that v i r t u a l l y no proverbs were s o l v e d before eleven years of age, a f i n d i n g c o n s i s t e n t with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . In c o n c l u s i o n , B i l l o w s t a t e d that the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that metaphor comprehension i s a type of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y behaviour which i s s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to maturing c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s as w e l l as to age. B i l l o w concluded "that rudimentary forms of metaphor comprehension e x i s t e a r l i e r i n a c h i l d ' s l i f e than h i t h e r t o supposed" (p.420). A major problem with t h i s study i s that the metaphors used "vary along an u n c o n t r o l l e d but i n f l u e n t i a l dimension, namely, e x i s t i n g knowledge p e r t a i n i n g to the concepts and r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v e d " (Ortony, 1980(a), p.354). Consequently, the r e s u l t s c o u l d probably be e x p l a i n e d as w e l l i n terms of a world knowledge d e f i c i t as i n terms of c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . 31 Second, B i l l o w asked h i s s u b j e c t s to perform a m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task, e x p l i c a t i o n , i n order to measure t h e i r comprehension. I t i s widely r e c o g n i z e d that m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s are as l i k e l y to be age and stage r e l a t e d as i s f i g u r a t i v e language comprehension i t s e l f (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). Thus, B i l l o w ' s f i n d i n g s must be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a r e . Gentner (1977) proposed and examined an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to a s s e s s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s development of m e t a p h o r i c a l and a n a l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s . Her approach, which i s based on an a n a l y s i s of the mapping process u n d e r l y i n g metaphor and analogy, focuses on s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t i e s to p r e s e r v e semantic r e l a t i o n s as they map from the domain (a human body) to the range (a c o n c r e t e o b j e c t ) on two t a s k s . The f i r s t , an o r i e n t a t i o n task, r e q u i r e d the s u b j e c t s to map s i x body p a r t s (head, s h o u l d e r s , arms, stomach, knees and f e e t ) onto p i c t u r e s of t r e e s . The second, a l o c a l f e a t u r e s task, r e q u i r e d the s u b j e c t s to map two face p a r t s (eyes and mouth) onto p i c t u r e s of mountains. In both t a s k s , the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n was asked o r a l l y of a l l s u b j e c t s i n an i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n : " I f t h i s range o b j e c t (e.g., t r e e ) had a domain p a r t (e.g., head), where would i t be?" Gentner a s s e r t e d that her r e s u l t s , which i n d i c a t e d that b a s i c a n a l o g i c a l a b i l i t y i s w e l l developed i n p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , weaken the p o s i t i o n that young c h i l d r e n l a c k m e t a p h o r i c a l a b i l i t y , and are compatible with the h y p o t h e s i s that such a b i l i t y i s present at the outset of language use. Thus she concluded that b a s i c a n a l o g i c a l a b i l i t y i s w e l l - d e v e l o p e d i n p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . 32 While the study has been c i t e d as exemplary f o r a v o i d i n g many of the standard p i t f a l l s of research i n t h i s area ( f o r example, c o n t r o l s f o r vocabulary experience, background knowledge, and understanding of the t a s k ) , and f o r p l a c i n g l i t t l e demand on c h i l d r e n ' s metacognitive s k i l l s (Ortony, 1980a), i t i s not obvious that Gentner was i n v e s t i g a t i n g the c a p a c i t y of c h i l d r e n to comprehend metaphor. Gentner (1977) a s s e r t e d that the d i s t i n c t i o n between metaphor and analogy i s one of f u n c t i o n , and s t a t e d that she was i n v e s t i g a t i n g an a b i l i t y common to both a n a l o g i c a l and me t a p h o r i c a l p r o c e s s i n g . Thus i t can be s a i d that the study was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of met a p h o r i c a l a b i l i t y only i n regard to i t s c o n s t i t u e n t a n a l o g i c a l component (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978). A r l i n (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 s t r a t e g i e s i n her e x p l o r a t i o n of metaphor and thought with one hundred and forty-two c h i l d r e n i n grades one to seven. A f t e r i n d i v i d u a l assessment of c o g n i t i v e developmental l e v e l u sing nine P i a g e t i a n t a s k s , the students were randomly assigned to one of two i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments w i t h i n t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l ( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t r a i n i n g and d i r e c t metaphor comprehension t r a i n i n g ) . The metaphors employed ( r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l , s i m i l a r i t y and p r o p o r t i o n a l ) were a l l taken from the four major b a s a l reading s e r i e s c u r r e n t l y i n use f o r grades one to three i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. Students' metaphor comprehension a b i l i t i e s were measured before and a f t e r the i n t e r v e n t i o n p e r i o d in i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s and t a s k s . A r l i n concluded that o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l as w e l l as age i s a strong 33 p r e d i c t o r of a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to comprehend metaphors, and t h a t given the l i m i t s of an o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l , both treatments were e f f e c t i v e i n producing i n c r e a s e d m e t a p h o r i c a l comprehension. A r l i n ' s f i n d i n g s support those of B i l l o w (1975). Winner, Engel and Gardner (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 which i n d i c a t e s that although c h i l d r e n use metaphoric language f r e q u e n t l y , and seem to have rudimentary metaphoric c a p a b i l i t i e s even at a very e a r l y age, they e x h i b i t c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y i n comprehending l i n g u i s t i c metaphors. Thus they sought to i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y f u r t h e r by determining whether misunderstanding of metaphor ought to be a t t r i b u t e d to an i n a b i l i t y to d i s c o v e r the ground of a metaphor, or to the task demands of a p a r t i c u l a r form of metaphoric sentence ( p r e d i c a t i v e versus t o p i c l e s s metaphors), or to s u r f a c e aspects of metaphoric sentences ( p r e d i c a t i v e metaphors versus s i m i l e s ; t o p i c l e s s metaphors versus a n a l o g i e s and r i d d l e s ) . One hundred and twenty c h i l d r e n at three age l e v e l s ( s i x , seven and nine) l i s t e n e d t o 15 sentences i n an i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . Each sentence was presented i n one of f i v e l i n g u i s t i c forms: f o r example, the f i r s t sentence was presented e i t h e r as a p r e d i c a t i v e metaphor ( i n which the l i s t e n e r must understand the ground) "The s k y w r i t i n g was a scar marking the sky," or as a t o p i c l e s s metaphor ( i n which the l i s t e n e r must d i s c o v e r the t o p i c ) " I t was a scar marking the sky," or as a s i m i l e "The s k y w r i t i n g was l i k e a scar marking the sky," or as a r i d d l e "What i s l i k e a s c a r but marks the sky?" or as a quasi-analogy "A scar marks the s k i n and a marks the sky?" A l l s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d three 34 sentences expressed i n each of the f i v e forms. The s u b j e c t s ' comprehension was measured e i t h e r by m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s or by an e x p l i c a t i o n t a s k . Although not a l l t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s were confirmed, the r e s e a r c h e r s s t a t e that the r e s u l t s of the study suggest that the task demands posed by p r e d i c a t i v e metaphors, and aspects of the s u r f a c e forms i n which t o p i c l e s s metaphors are encoded, pose o b s t a c l e s to comprehension f o r c h i l d r e n . Winner e_t a l . concluded that although c h i l d r e n r ecognize that the a s s e r t e d e quivalence of a metaphor based on grounds of p h y s i c a l resemblance i s not to be taken l i t e r a l l y , they do experience comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s due to the u n f a m i l i a r i t y of the metaphoric form, the n o n - e x p l i c i t n e s s of the a n a l o g i c a l comparison, and the a n a l y t i c task of e x p l i c a t i n g the ground. In c o n t r a s t , Baldwin, Luce and Readance (1982) a s s e r t t h a t i t i s not an a b i l i t y to cope with the metaphoric form t h a t causes comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n ; i t i s l a c k of knowledge. Baldwin et a l . i n v e s t i g a t e d the h y p o t h e s i s that knowledge of the s p e c i f i c matching a t t r i b u t e i s a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a metaphor or s i m i l e , and based t h e i r study on the s i m i l a r i t y t h e o r i e s of Tversky and Ortony (Ortony, 1979a). In two experiments, n i n e t y - f i v e f i f t h and s i x t h grade students were presented with metaphors and s i m i l e s embedded i n shor t sentences, and asked to w r i t e t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the f i g u r e s and to l i s t a l l the a t t r i b u t e s of the v e h i c l e s that they c o u l d t h i n k o f . In a d d i t i o n , i n the second p a r t of the f i r s t experiment, s u b j e c t s were presented 35 with the f i g u r e s which they had i n c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d , and asked to choose, from a given l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s , the a t t r i b u t e which was c r i t i c a l to understanding the metaphor or s i m i l e . I t was found that there was a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y to l i s t important a t t r i b u t e s and t h e i r a b i l i t y to p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r metaphors and s i m i l e s . Furthermore, a t t r i b u t e prompting s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d the number of a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Baldwin et a_l. a s s e r t t h a t the r e s u l t s of t h e i r experiments support the p o s i t i o n that knowledge of the matching a t t r i b u t e i s c r i t i c a l t o the r e s o l u t i o n of metaphors and s i m i l e s , and that the i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of metaphor i s s e n s i t i v e to s p e c i f i c word knowledge. Consequently, Baldwin et a l . conclude that i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s may l i e i n i n c r e a s i n g students' knowledge r a t h e r than i n i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to a nalyse and i n t e r p r e t language forms. Gaus (1980) has c r i t i c i z e d s t u d i e s which i n v e s t i g a t e the comprehension of metaphor without a surrounding, s u p p o r t i n g c o n t e x t . She suggests t h a t the s t u d i e s lack e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y , f o r f i g u r a t i v e language i s r a r e l y encountered in i s o l a t i o n i n e i t h e r the r e a l world or i n classroom assignments. Nonetheless, the s t u d i e s present c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s which serve as a v a l u a b l e comparison with the s t u d i e s of metaphor presented under longer c o n t e x t u a l c o n d i t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s suggest that c h i l d r e n ' s metaphor comprehension a b i l i t i e s have begun to develop by p r e s c h o o l age ( B i l l o w , 1975; Gentner, 1977). These a b i l i t i e s then proceed on 36 a r e g u l a r developmental course which seems to p a r a l l e l c h i l d r e n ' s i n c r e a s e d world knowledge and c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n ( A r l i n , 1978; Asch & Nerlove, 1960; B i l l o w , 1975; and Gardner, 1974). Furthermore, c h i l d r e n appear to reco g n i z e the n o n - l i t e r a l nature of metaphor (Winner, Engel & Gardner, 1980), but do encounter d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t e r p r e t i n g metaphors when the content i s beyond t h e i r e xperience, when c r i t i c a l a t t r i b u t e s are not i d e n t i f i e d , when s p e c i f i c word knowledge i s l a c k i n g , or when the comparison i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i c i t (Baldwin, Luce & Readance, 1982; Winner, Engel & Gardner, 1980). These c o n c l u s i o n s support the a s s e r t i o n of Baldwin et a l . that i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n metaphor comprehension may l i e i n i n c r e a s i n g students' knowledge ( l e x i c a l and world) r a t h e r than in i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to analyze and i n t e r p r e t metaphor. T h i s view c e r t a i n l y a f f i r m s the n o t i o n of Ortony (1980b) that metaphor i s not merely a l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y , but r a t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r use of language to express a c o g n i t i v e e n t i t y . The c o n s i s t e n c y of the f i n d i n g s of the above s t u d i e s i s probably due to three f a c t o r s . F i r s t , the metaphor i n t e r p r e t a t i o n processes are not com p l i c a t e d by such t e x t v a r i a b l e s as d i s c o u r s e type and t o p i c . Second, the metaphor t a r g e t s employed i n a l l the s t u d i e s are r e l a t i v e l y c o n c r e t e . The shared a t t r i b u t e s of each of these metaphors r e f e r to t a n g i b l e q u a l i t i e s or f a m i l i a r a c t i o n s and f u n c t i o n s . Asch and Nerlove (1960) and Gardner (1974) used d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n a d j e c t i v e s such as warm, c o l d , and deep, and asked s u b j e c t s to apply them to other domains, f o r example, human p e r s o n a l i t y . 37 The remaining three s t u d i e s used simple sentence t a r g e t s i n which the o b j e c t s being compared were r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e from the l i n g u i s t i c form of the metaphors, f o r example, "the a t h l e t e was l i k e a cheetah" (Baldwin, Luce & Readance, 1982), "the pond i s h i s m i r r o r " ( B i l l o w , 1975), and "the r a i n d r o p s were t e a r s f a l l i n g from the sky " (Winner, Engel & Gardner, 1980). T h i r d , there i s an uniform use of e x p l i c a t i o n and/or matching tasks as the experimental measures. 2.2.2 Long Context C o n d i t i o n G r i n d s t a f f and M u l l e r (1975) reviewed and summarized the U.S. N a t i o n a l Assessment of E d u c a t i o n a l Progress Reports (1970-71) on what young Americans know about l i t e r a t u r e . One aspect of the assessment c o n s i s t e d of d e t e r m i n i n g the a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s at four, age l e v e l s (9, 13, 17 y e a r s , and young, a d u l t ) to comprehend metaphor, which i n c l u d e d the r e c o g n i t i o n of the t o p i c and v e h i c l e of s p e c i f i c metaphors. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t gain i n comprehension a b i l i t y up to age seventeen, with a d u l t s making no a d d i t i o n a l gains except i n one c a t e g o r y . The a b i l i t i e s of each age group to understand each metaphor were as f o l l o w s : 47-76 p e r c e n t of the nine-year o l d s , 56-82 percent of the t h i r t e e n - y e a r o l d s and 68-90 percent of the seventeen-year o l d s . The gains were a t t r i b u t e d to the success of s c h o o l i n s t r u c t i o n i n l i t e r a t u r e , as w e l l as i n c r e a s e d m a t u r i t y and a d d i t i o n a l experience w i t h l i t e r a t u r e . Cunningham (1976) a l s o used s e l e c t i o n s from c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e to i n v e s t i g a t e the i n f l u e n c e of the amount of metaphor i n a t e x t upon the reading comprehension of that t e x t . 38 The s u b j e c t s , one hundred and n i n e t y s i x t h graders, read two 200-word passages which were i d e n t i c a l except f o r the amount of metaphoric language. Although both passages y i e l d e d i d e n t i c a l r e a d a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s , c l o z e comprehension of the metaphoric passage was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than comprehension of the non-metaphoric passage. Cunningham concluded that r e a d a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s do not account f o r a metaphoric passage being more d i f f i c u l t than a non-metaphoric passage, and t h e r e f o r e s e l e c t i o n s from c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e may be g e n e r a l l y more d i f f i c u l t than p r e v i o u s l y thought. However Gaus (1980) notes s e v e r a l problems with the study. F i r s t , the metaphoric passage i s h i g h l y and u n n a t u r a l l y metaphoric, c o n t a i n i n g eighteen metaphors w i t h i n the 200 word t e x t , f o r example, "Well, Mother, when I danced i n t o school t h i s morning, Mrs. Day was p i t c h i n g words with a man i n the h a l l , " i s e q u i v a l e n t to "Well, Mother, when I got to s c h o o l t h i s morning, I saw Mrs. Day t a l k i n g to a man i n the h a l l . " Second, asking c h i l d r e n to complete an author's metaphors a f t e r a s i n g l e reading of a t e x t , i n a c l o z e t e s t , would h a r d l y seem an a p p r o p r i a t e measure of t h e i r a b i l i t y to comprehend a t e x t c o n t a i n i n g metaphors. Moreover, the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the c l o z e procedure as a measure of t e x t comprehension i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . Winkeljohann (1979) reached s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s to those of Cunningham (1976) with regard to r e a d a b i l i t y e stimates and the d i f f i c u l t i e s posed by l i t e r a t u r e s e l e c t i o n s . She used s i x t y f i f t h - g r a d e and s i x t y eighth-grade c h i l d r e n to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of metaphors i n prose on reading comprehension. 39 C o n t r o l l i n g f o r the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by low mental a b i l i t y , i n a b i l i t y to respond to l i t e r a t u r e , and p o s s i b l e reading comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s , Winkeljohann measured the s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y to comprehend passages c o n t a i n i n g metaphor e x t r a c t e d from seven Newbery Award winning books by having them complete sets of m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e paraphrase q u e s t i o n s f o r each passage read. She concluded that metaphoric language i s a hindrance i n reading f o r f i f t h and s i x t h - g r a d e students, that reading l e v e l as e s t a b l i s h e d by r e a d a b i l i t y formulas i s not a good i n d i c a t o r of reading d i f f i c u l t y , and that the understanding of prose c o n t a i n i n g metaphors appears to be a most complex i n t e r a c t i o n of thought and language. It should be noted, however, that Winkeljohann used passages c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r three or four metaphors, one or two metaphors or no metaphors. She d i d not compare students' comprehension of the m e t a p h o r i c a l and l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of the same passages, nor d i d she c o n t r o l f o r s i m i l a r i t y of passage s t r u c t u r e and p r i o r knowledge of passage t o p i c s and metaphor v e h i c l e s . Thus i t cannot be s a i d that the study was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the extent to which metaphor i n n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l a f f e c t s students' comprehension. Rather, the study i s a general i n v e s t i g a t i o n as to whether there are f a c t o r s inherent in the language of l i t e r a t u r e which can present comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s to c h i l d r e n . Smith (1973) i n v e s t i g a t e d and compared the understanding that f o r t y s i x t h - g r a d e and f o r t y eighth-grade c h i l d r e n obtained from reading passages c o n t a i n i n g metaphor. A f t e r being 40 presented with ten metaphors, each embedded i n e i t h e r a sentence or a short paragraph, s u b j e c t s ' understanding was measured by v e r b a l r e t r o s p e c t i o n , and by the A s s o c i a t e d Commonplaces T e s t . T h i s t e s t was d e v i s e d by the re s e a r c h e r based on Black's (1962) theory of metaphor. The t e s t r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s to s e l e c t the a p p r o p r i a t e commonplaces or a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r each metaphor from a given l i s t of words. The N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h (N.C.T.E.) Look at L i t e r a t u r e t e s t was a l s o administered i n order to t e s t s u b j e c t s ' higher l e v e l c r i t i c a l reading a b i l i t i e s , to i n v e s t i g a t e whether the a b i l i t y to understand metaphoric language i s a s s o c i a t e d with higher l e v e l reading s k i l l s . A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n was found between these two f a c t o r s . I t was a l s o found that i n g e n e r a l , simple, concrete, common and d e n o t a t i v e metaphors were e a s i e r to understand than complex, a b s t r a c t , unusual and c o n n o t a t i v e metaphors. In a d d i t i o n , a d e s c r i p t i v e 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 ' responses to the metaphors i n d i c a t e d that the poorest responses were a s s o c i a t e d with c o n c r e t e , g l o b a l , d i f f u s e and u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d schema, and e g o - c e n t r i c or t r a n s d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g most commonly d i s p l a y e d by the younger c h i l d r e n , while the best responses demonstrated f l e x i b l e , a b s t r a c t , d i f f e r e n t i a t e d schema, and c o n t a i n e d examples of hy p o t h e t i c o -d e d u c t i v e reasoning and p r o p o s i t i o n a l thought. As expected, these responses were made, f o r the most p a r t , by the o l d e r c h i l d r e n . A r t e r (1976) sought to a s c e r t a i n whether or not metaphors i n a t e x t f a c i l i t a t e the comprehension and r e t e n t i o n of the 41 m a t e r i a l i n the t e x t , and inc r e a s e readers' i n t e r e s t i n the t e x t . One hundred and f o r t y - t h r e e s i x t h - g r a d e p u p i l s read a 570-word passage c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r ten metaphors or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n s . Using w r i t t e n f r e e r e c a l l s , m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension q u e s t i o n s , and an i n t e r e s t r a t i n g , A r t e r found no d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t e r e s t and no c o n c l u s i v e evidence su p p p o r t i n g the no t i o n that the presence of metaphors i n a passage f a c i l i t a t e s l e a r n i n g . A r t e r noted, however, that s e v e r a l measurement and p r o c e d u r a l problems were encountered. F i r s t , A r t e r ' s assumption that the "Sasquatch" would be an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c to her s u b j e c t s proved i n c o r r e c t . Second, A r t e r noted that the v e h i c l e s of the ten metaphors employed were not a l l w e l l Tnown to the s u b j e c t s , and that t h i s may have confounded the f r e e r e c a l l r e s u l t s . T h i r d , A r t e r noted that many of her s u b j e c t s were u n w i l l i n g to complete the t a s k s . A r t e r suggested that o r a l f r e e r e c a l l s i n an i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r than w r i t t e n f r e e r e c a l l s i n a group s i t u a t i o n , might have a l l e v i a t e d t h i s problem. Despite these problems, she found t h a t there was a gen e r a l f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of metaphor fo r low v e r b a l a b i l i t y s u b j e c t s which was c o n s i s t e n t with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h by Mayer (1975) who had found a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of metaphor f o r low a b i l i t y s u b j e c t s i n the l e a r n i n g of simple computer programming languages. A r t e r ' s (1976) r e s e a r c h motivated a set of s t u d i e s by Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979). They were impressed by A r t e r ' s f i n d i n g that the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of passages were at l e a s t as comprehensible and memorable as the l i t e r a l 42 passages, and they f e l t t h a t i f they used a d i f f e r e n t content, and metaphors with v e h i c l e s known to be f a m i l i a r to the s u b j e c t s , they c o u l d f i n d support f o r A r t e r ' s o r i g i n a l hypotheses. Using d i f f e r e n t passages, s u b j e c t s at the t h i r d -grade, s i x t h - g r a d e , and undergraduate l e v e l s , and o r a l r a t h e r than w r i t t e n f r e e r e c a l l s , they found t h a t a c r o s s t h e i r three experiments there were p a t t e r n s of r e g u l a r i t y . F i r s t , they concluded that c h i l d r e n and a d u l t ' s r e c a l l of metaphor i s always as good as, and o f t e n b e t t e r than, t h e i r r e c a l l of comparable l i t e r a l paraphrase i n s i t u a t i o n s where the v e h i c l e i s w i t h i n the s u b j e c t ' s s t o r e of world knowledge. Second, the r e s e a r c h e r s noted that the r o l e of metaphor as a b r i d g i n g d e v i c e appears t o depend upon passage f a m i l i a r i t y : when the passage m a t e r i a l was f a m i l i a r to s u b j e c t s , the metaphors were no more memorable than t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s ; but when the passage m a t e r i a l was l e s s f a m i l i a r , metaphors were remembered b e t t e r than t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s . They a t t r i b u t e d t h i s f i n d i n g to the b r i d g i n g f u n c t i o n of metaphor h y p o t h e s i z e d by A r t e r (1976) and P e t r i e (1979). T h i r d , the r e s e a r c h e r s s t a t e d that the metaphors' e f f e c t s were l i m i t e d t o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries. The metaphors appeared not to e x h i b i t c l u s t e r i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r they f a i l e d to e l i c i t g r e a t e r r e c a l l of the surrounding t e x t than the e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l paraphrases. Pearson e_t a_l., however, d i d experience some d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h e i r study. F i r s t , they d i d not f i n d an expected f a m i l i a r i t y e f f e c t f o r r e c a l l of i n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s i n t h e i r t h i r d experiment, and s u b j e c t s ' 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 . As a r e s u l t , the r e s e a r c h e r s questioned the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r judgements about f a m i l i a r i t y . Second, Pearson e_t a l . noted some d i f f e r e n c e s between the comprehension evidenced by probed r e c a l l and the comprehension evidenced by f r e e r e c a l l measures; namely, while there were s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between t o p i c and v e r s i o n f o r the probed r e c a l l of metaphors, there were none f o r f r e e r e c a l l . In a d d i t i o n , a " f l o o r e f f e c t " was found f o r f r e e r e c a l l of t a r g e t s i n the t h i r d experiment, due to poor student r e c a l l . They urge c a u t i o n with regard to the s o l e use of f r e e and probe r e c a l l tasks as measures of comprehension, and suggest that a d d i t i o n a l comprehension m e t r i c s such as a paraphrase r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t be used i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s . Reynolds and Schwartz (1979) a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d the qu e s t i o n of whether or not metaphors h e l p or hinder prose comprehension. Using e i g h t short d i d a c t i c passages with e i t h e r l i t e r a l or meta p h o r i c a l summarizing statements, seventy-one c o l l e g e students as s u b j e c t s , and w r i t t e n r e c a l l measures, they examined whether the f i g u r a t i v e nature of metaphor enhances memory f o r the metaphor i t s e l f , and whether the i n c l u s i o n of metaphor i n prose enhances the comprehension of the in f o r m a t i o n surrounding the metaphor. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d i n c r e a s e d memorability f o r passages with metaphoric c o n c l u s i o n s . The c o n c l u d i n g metaphors were r e c a l l e d b e t t e r than the e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l sentences, and in c o n t r a s t to the f i n d i n g s of Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser (1979), there was a l s o an i n c r e a s e i n memory f o r the contexts p r e c e d i n g the metaphors. 44 T h i s c o n t r a s t i n g 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 f a c t o r s . F i r s t , Reynolds and Schwartz used c o l l e g e students r a t h e r than elementary school students as t h e i r s u b j e c t s . Second, they used w r i t t e n r a t h e r than o r a l f r e e r e c a l l measures. T h i r d , they used passages with e i t h e r metaphoric or l i t e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s r a t h e r than passages i n which metaphors or t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s had been embedded. T h i s p o s i t i o n f a c t o r may be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t l y , a c o n c l u s i o n i s of high s t r u c t u r a l importance i n a t e x t . Meyer (1975) summarizes the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the s t r u c t u r a l importance of idea u n i t s i n memory of t e x t and notes t h a t of a l l the v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d , the s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e appears to be the most promising in p r e d i c t i n g whether ideas i n a passage w i l l be w e l l or p o o r l y r e c a l l e d . She notes that s u b j e c t s ' r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s tend to s t a t e i n f o r m a t i o n that c l o s e l y corresponds to the t o t a l meaning of the passage (that i s , u n i t s of h i g h s t r u c t u r a l importance) and omit secondary themes and d e s c r i p t i o n s (that i s , u n i t s of low s t r u c t u r a l importance). Concluding statements are thus l i k e l y to be w e l l remembered, and a l s o to c a r r y w i t h them a gr e a t e r memory f o r preceding u n i t s of r e l a t e d important i n f o r m a t i o n . Thus i t f o l l o w s that a metaphor p l a c e d i n a co n c l u d i n g statement i s l i k e l y to be b e t t e r remembered than a metaphor p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n of lower s t r u c t u r a l importance i n a t e x t . The r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to comprehend metaphors presented under long c o n t e x t u a l c o n d i t i o n s are i n c o n s i s t e n t . G r i n d s t a f f and M u l l e r 45 (1975) and Smith (1973) document a developmental growth i n students' a b i l i t i e s to comprehend metaphor. Cunningham (1976) and Winkeljohann (1979) c o n s i d e r metaphoric language to be more d i f f i c u l t to comprehend than l i t e r a l language. In c o n t r a s t , however, A r t e r (1976), Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979) and Reynolds and Schwartz (1979) note that metaphor i s at l e a s t as comprehensible as i t s l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t , and that under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s metaphor may have a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on passage comprehension. S e v e r a l reasons are suggested f o r these i n c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , the types of metaphor employed as t a r g e t s vary g r e a t l y i n form, n a t u r a l n e s s and f a m i l i a r i t y of content: f o r example, some are s e l e c t e d from c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e ("...(she) watched the t r e e s t o s s i n g i n .the f r e n z i e d l a s h i n g of the wind" (Winkeljohann, 1979)); o t h e r s are c o n t r i v e d metaphors embedded i n t e x t s e s p e c i a l l y w r i t t e n f o r re s e a r c h purposes ("Mrs. G l a s s d r i e d her hands on the tongue of her apron" (Cunningham, 1976)). Second, a wide v a r i e t y of experimental tasks has been employed, some of which demand much more than mere comprehension of metaphor; f o r example, c l o z e e x e r c i s e s (Cunningham, 1976) r e q u i r e a knowledge of the author's l i t e r a r y s t y l e , m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s (Smith, 1973; Winkeljohann, 1979) i n v o l v e a cueing which can produce p r o c e s s i n g t h a t might not otherwise have o c c u r r e d , and w r i t t e n r e c a l l s ( A r t e r , 1976) r e q u i r e w e l l developed w r i t t e n p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s . T h i r d , the t e x t s i n which the metaphors are embedded range over a v a r i e t y of d i s c o u r s e types and t o p i c s , from passages e x t r a c t e d from Newbery Award winning c h i l d r e n ' s books 46 (Winkeljohann, 1979), f o r example, through h i g h l y c o n t r i v e d and u n n a t u r a l n a r r a t i v e passages (Cunningham, 1976) to short d i d a c t i c t e x t s (Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979). Nonetheless, some t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s may be drawn from these r e s u l t s . F i r s t , as f o r metaphors presented i n minimal c o n t e x t s , i t appears that c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to d e a l with metaphor are present at an e a r l y age, and proceed on a r e g u l a r developmental course which seems to p a r a l l e l t h e i r growing m a t u r i t y , c o g n i t i v e development and experience with the world and with l i t e r a t u r e ( G r i n d s t a f f & M u l l e r , 1975). Second, c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to d e a l with metaphor appear to be r e l a t e d to t h e i r g e n e r a l reading a b i l i t y (Smith, 1973). T h i r d , c o n v e n t i o n a l r e a d a b i l i t y formulas do not account f o r the reading d i f f i c u l t i e s that metaphor may impose (Cunningham, 1976; Winkeljohann, 1979). T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with Ortony's a s s e r t i o n that metaphor i s a f u n c t i o n a l r a t h e r than a grammatical language phenonmenon (Ortony, I980b).^ Fourth, although Cunningham (1976) and Winkeljohann ( 1 9 7 9 ) — u s i n g c l o z e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , as m e a s u r e s -concluded t h a t metaphor can hinder the comprehension of prose, Reynolds & Schwartz (1979) using r e c a l l , and A r t e r (1976) and Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979) using both comprehension q u e s t i o n s and r e c a l l , found a range of f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s : i n the f i r s t p l a c e , the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of passages were at l e a s t as comprehensible and memorable as the l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s . Secondly, the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of passages appeared to be more memorable than the 47 l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s : when the t e x t t o p i c was u n f a m i l i a r (Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser, 1979); when the metaphors were c o n c l u d i n g statements (Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979); and when su b j e c t s were of low a b i l i t y ( A r t e r , 1976). In the t h i r d p l a c e , metaphor e f f e c t s were l i m i t e d to t h e i r s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries i n one i n s t a n c e (Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser, 1979) but not i n another (Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979). 3. SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY With regard to t h e o r e t i c a l background, a review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d that a Comparative view of metaphor has been taken i n the m a j o r i t y of the metaphor re s e a r c h s t u d i e s . A Comparative view has a l s o been taken f o r the purposes of t h i s study. Metaphor has been regarded as a f u n c t i o n a l r a t h e r than as a grammatical language phenomenon, and one that r e l i e s on the surrounding context to s i g n a l to the reader that a metaphoric ra t h e r than a l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . Furthermore, the term metaphor has been used to r e f e r to both s i m i l e s and metaphors, f o r the two appear to share a common f u n c t i o n as w e l l as a common p s y c h o l o g i c a l process by which they are comprehended. Ortony (I979d) suggests that the f u n c t i o n of both metaphor and s i m i l e i s to express a s i m i l a r i t y between r e f e r e n t s that are not r e a l l y a l i k e f o r the purposes of communication. The shared comprehension process i n v o l v e s the r e a l i z a t i o n of a t e n s i o n or conceptual i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between the r e f e r e n t s which i s s o l v e d by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the shared a t t r i b u t e or~ a t t r i b u t e s . A d i f f e r e n t but not e n t i r e l y incompatible view has been proposed by K i n t s c h (1974) who suggests that the 48 comprehension of a metaphor proceeds by the c o n v e r s i o n of the metaphor i n t o a s i m i l e . Thus, the d i f f e r e n c e between metaphor and s i m i l e l i e s i n the su r f a c e s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s i g n a l s . A s i m i l e i s u s u a l l y i n d i c a t e d by the presence of such words as " l i k e " or "as", while a metaphor r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on the context i n which i t i s embedded to f o r c e a met a p h o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For the purposes of t h i s study which focuses on the comprehension p r o c e s s e s , metaphor and s i m i l e have been regarded as one. With r e g a r d to c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s to d e a l with metaphor, a review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that young c h i l d r e n can and do comprehend me t a p h o r i c a l language p r o v i d e d the contents of the metaphors l i e w i t h i n t h e i r world e x p e r i e n c e . I t a l s o seems that young c h i l d r e n can and do spontaneously use me t a p h o r i c a l language i n t h e i r speech and, when task c o n s t r a i n t s are not overwhelming, can produce metaphors i n t h e i r w r i t t e n language. I t appears, however, that the a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n t h e i r own or oth e r s ' metaphors r e q u i r e s a m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness that only comes with i n c r e a s e d age, c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , and experience with the world and wit h language. I t a l s o appears that although metaphor i n t e x t may present comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s which are not i n d i c a t e d by r e a d a b i l i t y measures, under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s metaphor may a c t u a l l y f a c i l i t a t e the comprehension of a given t e x t and the metaphors w i l l be b e t t e r remembered than t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s ( t h a t i s , when the v e h i c l e of the metaphor i s known, when the t o p i c of the given t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r , and when the 49 c o n c l u d i n g statement i s metaphoric). Obviously, the e f f e c t s of metaphor i n t e x t on r e c a l l and comprehension of both the metaphor and the surrounding tex t are not yet c l e a r ; nor does a s u f f i c i e n t body of evidence yet e x i s t . Each of the above c o n d i t i o n s was the f i n d i n g of but a s i n g l e study. The present study, which extends the work of A r t e r (1976) and Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979), was designed to f u r t h e r examine the c o n d i t i o n s under which metaphor appears to have a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on c h i l d r e n s ' comprehension, that i s , when the v e h i c l e of the metaphor i s known and the t o p i c of the t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r . A r t e r (1976) sought to a s c e r t a i n whether or not metaphors i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t i n , and f a c i l i t a t e d comprehension of the m a t e r i a l i n the t e x t s . Although A r t e r f a i l e d to f i n d d e f i n i t i v e support f o r her hypotheses, she d i d f i n d some evidence f o r a g e n e r a l f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of metaphor on l e a r n i n g f o r her low v e r b a l a b i l i t y s t u d e n t s . A r t e r , however, encountered s e v e r a l measurement and p r o c e d u r a l problems i n c l u d i n g an i n c o r r e c t assumption concerning the " u n f a m i l i a r i t y " of the t o p i c of the experimental passage, and her re s e a r c h motivated a set of s t u d i e s by Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979). Pearson e_t a l . i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of metaphor and t o p i c f a m i l i a r i t y on students' a b i l i t y to understand and remember t e x t . Pearson et. a l . reached three major c o n c l u s i o n s which supported and extended A r t e r ' s hypotheses. F i r s t , c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s ' r e c a l l of metaphors was always as good as t h e i r r e c a l l of the e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l phrases, i n s i t u a t i o n s 50 where the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors were known by the s u b j e c t s . Second, the r o l e of metaphor as a f a c i l i t a t o r of comprehension depended upon passage f a m i l i a r i t y , t h a t i s , that metaphors were b e t t e r remembered when the m a t e r i a l i n the t e x t was u n f a m i l i a r . T h i r d , metaphor e f f e c t s appeared to be l i m i t e d to t h e i r s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries. The present study focuses on the second f i n d i n g by Pearson et a l . — t h a t the r o l e of metaphor as a f a c i l i t a t o r of comprehension depends on t o p i c f a m i l i a r i t y — b e c a u s e Pearson et a l . expressed some r e s e r v a t i o n s about t h e i r judgements of f a m i l i a r i t y i n l i g h t of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s among t h e i r three experiments. In t h e i r t h i r d experiment, Pearson et a_l. found, as p r e d i c t e d , s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores f o r the u n f a m i l i a r metaphoric passage than f o r the f a m i l i a r metaphoric passage on probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was not found, however, on on the f r e e r e c a l l measures. Furthermore,while the six t h - g r a d e s u b j e c t s in the t h i r d experiment c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d the u n f a m i l i a r passage as l e s s f a m i l i a r to them than the f a m i l i a r passage, the t h i r d - g r a d e students were evenly s p l i t as to the f a m i l i a r i t y of the two passages. Thus, the present study m o d i f i e s the methodology of Pearson et a l . by employing a P r i o r  Knowledge P r e t e s t to ensure that t e x t t o p i c s were F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r to the s u b j e c t s as r e q u i r e d , and that v e h i c l e s of the metaphors were known to the s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , a Metaphor  Probe (a paraphrase recognition-of-meaning t e s t ) was adm i n i s t e r e d as an a d d i t i o n a l comprehension measure. T h i s a d d i t i o n a l measure was recommended by Pearson et a_l. as a r e s u l t 51 of t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s from probe and f r e e r e c a l l measures. The review of l i t e r a t u r e a l s o r e v e a l e d a number of major problems which c o n f r o n t an i n v e s t i g a t o r of the e f f e c t s of metaphor on prose comprehension. The f i r s t i s the problem of c o n s t r u c t i n g metaphors which are novel (Ortony, Reynolds & A r t e r , 1978), and which can be paraphrased e a s i l y i n t o l i t e r a l statements to allow f o r a comparison between the metaphoric and the l i t e r a l c o n d i t i o n s (Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979). The l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t statement must be a sentence c o n t a i n i n g words of equal frequency and i t must be of equal s y n t a c t i c complexity. The second i s the problem of knowledge about the domains of inf o r m a t i o n to which a metaphor r e l a t e s (Ortony, 1980b; Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser, 1979; Reynolds & Schwartz, 1979). I f a reader does not know about c o t t o n candy, then an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "my head i s l i k e a b a l l of co t t o n candy" w i l l be very d i f f i c u l t . The t h i r d i s the problem of the experimental tasks employed to measure the comprehension of the metaphors. Emig (1972), Gaus (1980), Ortony, Reynolds and A r t e r (1978), and Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979) note that the task demands of many of the experiments of metaphor comprehension are too complex, are not c l e a r l y understood by s u b j e c t s , and are not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the comprehension of metaphor. Johnston (1983) examined the c o n s t r a i n t s which operate i n reading comprehension assessment, and he suggests that a v a r i e t y of tasks i s best as each t a s k — o r a l f r e e r e c a l l , probe comprehension q u e s t i o n s and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s — p r o v i d e s 52 d i f f e r e n t yet complementary i n f o r m a t i o n about a reader's reading processes and f i n a l understanding. The f o u r t h problem concerns s u b j e c t s ' response b i a s . Gardner, K i r c h e r , Winner and P e r k i n s (1974) suggest that elementary school c h i l d r e n appear to have a p r e f e r e n c e f o r l i t e r a l language even though they are c o g n i t i v e l y capable of comprehending metaphor. R e s u l t s may thus be confounded. These problems were c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y i n the design and methodology of the present study. 53 I I I . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The present study was designed and conducted to examine the e f f e c t s of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s with f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s . 1. SUBJECTS The s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were f o r t y - s i x grade seven students from lower, middle and upper socio-economic backgrounds, e n r o l l e d i n two adjacent urban elementary schools i n Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia. Schools from School D i s t r i c t No. 38 (Richmond) were chosen because of the d i s t r i c t ' s i n t e r e s t i n the present study. Two c l a s s e s at James McKinney Elementary School and one c l a s s at W i l l i a m Bridge Elementary School were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r t e a c h e r s ' w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study when approached by the Elementary Language A r t s C o o r d i n a t o r f o r the School D i s t r i c t . F orty-seven of the ninety-seven students e n r o l l e d i n the three grade-seven classrooms were excluded f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: they f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i a of the P r i o r  Knowledge P r e t e s t ( d e s c r i b e d below), they were non-native E n g l i s h speakers, they scored below grade 6.0 on the reading subtest of the Canadian Test of B a s i c S k i l l s (C.T.B.S.), or t h e i r C.T.B.S. scores were not a v a i l a b l e . The remaining f i f t y students were ranked a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r C.T.B.S. reading subtest s c o r e s . The students were then a l t e r n a t e l y a s s i g n e d to read e i t h e r the two Metaphoric or the two L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of the F a m i l i a r and the Unfami l i a r e x perimental t e x t s . During the experimental p e r i o d a f u r t h e r three students 54 (one from the L i t e r a l c o n d i t i o n and two from the Metaphoric c o n d i t i o n ) were absent f o r a l l or p a r t of the t e s t i n g . Thus, to balance the number of s u b j e c t s i n each c o n d i t i o n f o r the f i n a l data a n a l y s i s , a post hoc random e x c l u s i o n of a L i t e r a l s u b j e c t was made, l e a v i n g twenty-three s u b j e c t s in the Metaphoric c o n d i t i o n and twenty-three i n the L i t e r a l c o n d i t i o n . 2. THE EXPERIMENTAL TEXTS Two v e r s i o n s , one Metaphoric and one L i t e r a l , of two short i n s t r u c t i o n a l e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s were used as the experimental m a t e r i a l s . One t e x t , "Polar Bears," d e s c r i b e d a t o p i c F a m i l i a r to the experimental p o p u l a t i o n , while the other t e x t , "Wombats," d e s c r i b e d an U n f a m i l i a r t o p i c . Both t e x t s were adapted from supplementary e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , Hunted Mammals of the Sea by R. M. McClung (1978) and A u s t r a l i a n M a r s u p i a l s by P. Crowcroft (1970), which are l i k e l y to be found i n a elementary school l i b r a r y . The metaphoric v e r s i o n of each experimental t e x t c o n t a i n e d e i g h t Metaphor T a r g e t s . For ease of d e s c r i p t i o n , these w i l l be c a l l e d the "metaphoric t e x t s " although i n f a c t the t e x t s themselves were not metaphoric; they merely c o n t a i n e d metaphors. The metaphors were c o n s t r u c t e d by a process of b r a i n s t o r m i n g , r a t i n g , r e w r i t i n g and d i s c u s s i o n by a group of s i x Language Educators and a graduate Composition c l a s s i n the Language Education Department at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The metaphors f i n a l l y s e l e c t e d f o r use i n the e i g h t t a r g e t p o s i t i o n s of the two experimental t e x t s were judged, by a group of four Language Educators, to be the most n a t u r a l and o r i g i n a l , and the 55 best a b l e to convey f a c t s and engender i n f e r e n c e s . The L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of both the F a m i l i a r and the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t s were i d e n t i c a l to the Metaphoric v e r s i o n s , except that e i g h t l i t e r a l phrases ( L i t e r a l E q u i v a l e n t T a r g e t s ) , r a t e d by the Educators to be e q u i v a l e n t t r a n s l a t i o n s of the metaphors, had been s u b s t i t u t e d i n p l a c e of the metaphors. For ease of d e s c r i p t i o n , these w i l l be c a l l e d the " l i t e r a l t e x t s . " The t e x t s and t h e i r t a r g e t s are presented i n Appendices A and B. The four t e x t s ranged i n l e n g t h from 378 to 401 words, and cont a i n e d approximately the same number of idea u n i t s . The F a m i l i a r t e x t s (Metaphoric and L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s ) c o n t a i n e d seventy-nine idea u n i t s , and the Unfami 1 i a r t e x t s (Metaphoric and L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s ) c o n t a i n e d seventy-two idea u n i t s . Each of the four t e x t s has an estimated r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of grade 7/8 as measured by the D a l e - C h a l l R e a d a b i l i t y Formula (Dale & C h a l l , 1948). The D a l e - C h a l l raw scores f o r each t e x t are as f o l l o w s : F a m i l i a r Metaphoric, 6.39; F a m i l i a r L i t e r a l , 6.00; U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric, 6.44; and U n f a m i l i a r L i t e r a l , 6.28. A summary of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t e x t s i s p r e s e n t e d i n Table I below. The t o p i c of the F a m i l i a r t e x t , " P o l a r Bears," was chosen because i t was assumed that most Canadian c h i l d r e n would be q u i t e f a m i l i a r with t h i s animal. In c o n t r a s t , the U n f a m i l i a r t o p i c , "Wombats," was chosen because i t was assumed that very few Canadian c h i l d r e n would have any knowledge of t h i s A u s t r a l i a n n o c t u r n a l m a r s u p i a l . Furthermore, as a wombat i s s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s to a bear, i t was assumed that i t would be p o s s i b l e to keep the d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e of the two t e x t s 56 r e l a t i v e l y p a r a l l e l . In p r a c t i c e , these assumptions proved c o r r e c t . I t may a l s o be of i n t e r e s t to note t h a t o r i g i n a l l y , the t o p i c s " B a s e b a l l " and " C r i c k e t " had been chosen. However, these t o p i c s d i d not accommodate the embedding of " n a t u r a l -sounding" metaphors—-a p e r s : s t e n t problem f o r the metaphor r e s e a r c h e r . Table I Characteristics of the Experimental Texts Dale-Chall Text Idea Raw Words Units Score Readability Familiar Metaphoric Literal Unfamiliar Metaphoric Literal 399 79 6.39 Grade 7-8 400 79 6.00 Grade 7-8 388 72 6.44 Grade 7-8 375 72 6.28 Grade 7-8 57 3. THE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS The f o l l o w i n g measuring instruments were used i n the study: (1) Reading subtest scores on the Canadian Test of B a s i c S k i l l s (C.T.B.S.), (2) P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t , (3) O r a l Free R e c a l l s , (4) Probed R e c a l l Questions, (5) M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probe, and (6) D e b r i e f i n g I n t e r v i e w s . A l l the instruments except f o r the C.T.B.S. reading subtest were p i l o t - t e s t e d two months p r i o r to the experimental p e r i o d . 3.1 The Canadian Test Of Basic S k i l l s The s t a n d a r d i z e d reading t e s t which was used to i d e n t i f y r e a d i n g a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s was the reading subtest of the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s which was adm i n i s t e r e d by the personnel of James McKinney School i n June 1982, and by the personnel of W i l l i a m Bridge School i n October 1982. Students' scores on the C.T.B.S. reading subtest were ob t a i n e d from the students' cumulative r e c o r d f i l e s . The scores were used f o r two reasons: (a) to ensure that there was a b a s e l i n e reading a b i l i t y l e v e l of grade 6.0 w i t h i n the sample, and (b) to ensure that s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d to the Metaphoric c o n d i t i o n and those a s s i g n e d to the L i t e r a l c o n d i t i o n would be approximately equal with regard to measured read i n g a b i l i t y . The mean reading a b i l i t y of the Metaphoric s u b j e c t s was grade 7.70 and the mean readin g a b i l i t y of the L i t e r a l s u b j e c t s was grade 7.76. 58 3.2 P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t The p r i o r knowledge p r e t e s t was a short w r i t t e n t e s t which was designed to ensure that the t e x t t o p i c s would be F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r to the p o p u l a t i o n as r e q u i r e d , and that the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors l a y w i t h i n the s u b j e c t s ' s t o r e of world knowledge and vocabulary e x p e r i e n c e . See Appendix C f o r a copy of the t e s t . With regard to t o p i c knowledge, s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to wri t e a l l they knew about each t o p i c , P o l a r Bears and Wombats, in the form of short statements. Major category prompts (e.g., "appearance," " d a i l y h a b i t s , " " f a v o r i t e food," "breeding p a t t e r n " ) were pro v i d e d because i t has been demonstrated that c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g access to and g i v i n g order to the knowledge that they have ( B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia, 1982). With regard to v e h i c l e knowledge, s u b j e c t s completed a s i x t e e n item m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t . Each metaphor v e h i c l e was presented with a s e l e c t i o n of four p o s s i b l e meanings. Subjec t s were r e q u i r e d to choose and to c i r c l e the 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 Free R e c a l l s The o r a l f r e e r e c a l l s were the s u b j e c t s ' o r a l r e t e l l i n g s , under unprompted c o n d i t i o n s , of the texfcs which they had j u s t read. Each s u b j e c t ' s r e c a l l was taped, and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d . See Appendix E f o r an example of an o r a l f r e e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l . 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 were asked i n a d d i t i o n to the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l task because i t has been found that d i f f e r e n t comprehension assessments r e s u l t from these two d i f f e r e n t measures due to d i f f e r e n t i a l task demands. Johnston (1983) notes that o r a l f r e e r e c a l l of a t e x t i n v o l v e s a l a r g e memory component and a l s o problems of r e t r i e v a l and p r o d u c t i o n : f o r example, the reader must understand what l e v e l of d e t a i l must be reproduced, and to what degree the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e of the o r i g i n a l t e x t must be maintained. In c o n t r a s t , probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s are l i k e l y to tap more i n f o r m a t i o n and g i v e a b e t t e r i n d i c a t i o n of the extent to which a reader has transformed and i n t e g r a t e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n (Tierney & Cunningham, 1980), but the q u e s t i o n s themselves can r e s u l t i n f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g of s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . Furthermore, the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n one probe may a f f e c t a reader's performance on another probe (Johnston, 1983). Su b j e c t s were asked three types of probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s - F a c t , I n c i d e n t a l F a c t , and I n f e r e n t i a l . T h e i r answers were recor d e d on audiotape and t r a n s c r i b e d f o r l a t e r a n a l y s i s . The purpose of the F a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s was to determine whether e i t h e r v e r s i o n of a t e x t (Metaphoric or L i t e r a l ) d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a i d e d comprehension of the manipulated p a i r s . The purpose of the I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s was to determine whether e i t h e r v e r s i o n of a t e x t d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a i d e d comprehension of the i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l . The purpose of the I n f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s was to determine whether a g r e a t e r number of v a l i d i n f e r e n c e s 60 c o u l d be made from metaphors than from t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s . The probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s f o r each t e x t are presented i n Appendix F. 3.5 M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probe The m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor probe was a s i x t e e n item t e s t which was designed as a supplementary measure of s u b j e c t s ' comprehension of t a r g e t metaphors. See Appendix G f o r a copy of the t e s t . T h i s a u x i l i a r y measure was used because probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task of e x p l i c a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to the c o g n i t i v e task of comprehension. In c o n t r a s t , the metaphor probe i s a simple r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g t a s k . Pearson et a l . (1979) suggested that the use of these two instruments i n concert should c o n s t i t u t e an a p p r o p r i a t e methodology to i n v e s t i g a t e metaphor e f f e c t . The probe was completed by those s u b j e c t s who had read the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of the two experimental t e x t s . The t e s t c o n s i s t e d of the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the s i x t e e n t a r g e t metaphors embedded i n t h e i r c o n t e x t u a l sentences. Each metaphor was s u p p l i e d with a s e l e c t i o n of four l i t e r a l statements. Subje c t s were r e q u i r e d to choose and to c i r c l e the c o r r e c t l i t e r a l paraphrase of each given metaphor. 3.6 D e b r i e f i n g Interviews The d e b r i e f i n g i n t e r v i e w s p r o v i d e d an i n f o r m a l measure of s u b j e c t s ' ease of reading and understanding of the t e x t s , f a m i l i a r i t y with the t o p i c s , and i n t e r e s t i n the t o p i c s . Each short s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w was recorded on audiotape and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n so obtained served to c l a r i f y and 61 augment s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s and suggested areas f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . An i n t e r v i e w schedule i s presented i n Appendix H. 3.7 P i l o t T e s t i n g Of The Measuring Instruments Two c l a s s e s of grade-six students at a p r i v a t e boys' school i n Vancouver, B.C., were used to p i l o t t e s t the experimental t e x t s and measuring instruments. Grade-six r a t h e r than grade-seven students were used f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the p i l o t p o p u l a t i o n was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the r e s e a r c h e r . Second, the p o p u l a t i o n was of average to very high reading a b i l i t y and i t was assumed that the grade l e v e l d i f f e r e n c e would be of l i t t l e consequence. Both c l a s s e s completed the P r i o r Knowledge  P r e t e s t , read the Metaphoric t e x t s , and completed the m u l t i p l e -c h o i c e Metaphor Probe. In a d d i t i o n , four i n d i v i d u a l s , two good readers and two average readers s e l e c t e d by the classroom t e a c h e r s , read the F a m i l i a r and the U n f a m i l i a r metaphoric t e x t s , gave o r a l f r e e r e c a l l s , and answered the o r a l comprehension q u e s t i o n s . Responses to the measures by the c l a s s e s and the i n d i v i d u a l s were examined, and items e l i c i t i n g l e s s than a 90 percent c o r r e c t response were s t u d i e d more c l o s e l y , and d i s c u s s e d with two Language Educators. Examination of the p i l o t data r e s u l t e d i n four a l t e r a t i o n s to the measuring instruments: one p r e t e s t q u e s t i o n , two o r a l comprehension q u e s t i o n s and one metaphor probe q u e s t i o n were re-worded in order to e l i m i n a t e ambiguity. 62 4. THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE The s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n A p r i l , 1983. One week p r i o r t o the experimentation p e r i o d , the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n ' s knowledge of both the t o p i c s of the two t e x t s , and t h e i r knowledge of the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors used i n the t e x t s , were measured i n a group a d m i n i s t e r e d P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t . Then, as p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , a number of students were excluded from the study. The remaining students were ranked a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r C.T.B.S. read i n g subtest scores and a l t e r n a t e l y a s s i g n e d to read e i t h e r the Metaphoric or the L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of the two experimental t e x t s . Each s u b j e c t was a l s o randomly a s s i g n e d to read e i t h e r 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 i n order to a v o i d a p o s s i b l e passage order e f f e c t . Each s u b j e c t was t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y by the experimenter i n a c l o s e d room. Uniform d i r e c t i o n s were given t o each s u b j e c t . The t o t a l t e s t i n g time f o r each subject was between 25 and 35 minutes. The experimental p e r i o d was almost three weeks i n d u r a t i o n . The s u b j e c t s proceeded through the m a t e r i a l s and measures i n the order l i s t e d below. The approximate time spent on each procedure i s i n d i c a t e d i n parentheses. O r i e n t a t i o n to task and t e s t e r (3 mins.) S i l e n t reading of the f i r s t t e x t (2 mins.) O r a l f r e e r e c a l l (3 mins.) O r a l probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s (2 mins.) M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor probe - i f a p p l i c a b l e (3 mins.) D e b r i e f i n g i n t e r v i e w (2 mins.) Short break (2 mins.) R e o r i e n t a t i o n to task (1 min.) S i l e n t reading of the second text (2 mins.) O r a l f r e e r e c a l l (3 mins.) 63 O r a l probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s (2 mins.) M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor probe - i f a p p l i c a b l e (3 mins.) F i n a l d e b r i e f i n g i n t e r v i e w (2 mins.) T o t a l t e s t i n g time; 30 mins. 5. THE SCORING OF DATA. Each of the f i v e measuring instruments a d m i n i s t e r e d f o r t h i s study ( P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t s , O r a l Free R e c a l l s , Probed R e c a l l Questions, M u l t i p l e - C h o i c e Metaphor Probes, and D e b r i e f i n g Interviews) was scored as d e s c r i b e d below. 5.1 P r i o r Knowledge P r e t e s t . Subjects were as s i g n e d three scores f o r t h i s t e s t : knowledge of F a m i l i a r t o p i c , knowledge of U n f a m i l i a r t o p i c , and knowledge of the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors. F i r s t , s u b j e c t s ' w r i t t e n statements concerning the two t o p i c s were an a l y z e d , and scores denoting the number of a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s w r i t t e n f o r each t o p i c were as s i g n e d . A t o p i c was deemed " F a m i l i a r " to a s u b j e c t i f f i v e or more a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s were w r i t t e n , and " U n f a m i l i a r " i f three or fewer a p p r o p r i a t e a t t r i b u t e s were w r i t t e n . Second, s u b j e c t s ' responses to the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t i n which the c o r r e c t meanings of the v e h i c l e s of the t a r g e t metaphors were to be s e l e c t e d , were analyzed. A s u b j e c t had to answer c o r r e c t l y at l e a s t twelve of the s i x t e e n v e h i c l e s i f he or she was to be i n c l u d e d i n the experimental sample. Those s u b j e c t s who d i d not meet the c r i t e r i a of the P r i o r Knowledge  P r e t e s t were excluded. The data were not used f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . 64 5.2 O r a l Free R e c a l l s . S c o r i n g the data from the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l s i n v o l v e d three s t e p s : (a) c o n s t r u c t i n g the t e x t base templates, (b) a n a l y z i n g the r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s i n t o idea u n i t s and c l a s s i f y i n g these u n i t s , and (c) a s s i g n i n g scores to each p r o t o c o l . 5.2.1 C o n s t r u c t i o n Of The Text Base Template The t e x t base templates of the experimental t e x t s were c o n s t r u c t e d by s u b j e c t i v e l y a n a l y z i n g each tex t i n t o a l i s t of idea u n i t s , t h a t i s , words or phrases that seemed to convey the i n d i v i d u a l ideas s t a t e d i n the t e x t . An example of a t e x t base template i s presented i n Appendix D. T h i s procedure, s i m i l a r to that developed by Johnson (1965) and subsequently employed by a number of r e s e a r c h e r s , i n c l u d i n g Meyer and McConkie (1975) and A r t e r (1976), was completed by four Language educators working . independently on the metaphoric v e r s i o n s of the two experimental t e x t s . The r e l i a b i l i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g idea u n i t s was measured by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of a c t u a l agreements f o r the four judges by the t o t a l number of p o s s i b l e agreements. For example, the metaphoric F a m i l i a r t e x t c o n t a i n e d 397 words. Thus, there were 397 p o s s i b l e p l a c e s where an idea u n i t boundary c o u l d be p l a c e d . Given four judges, there are s i x p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e agreements f o r each boundary. Thus, the t o t a l p o s s i b l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r agreeement were 2382 (6 X 397). S i m i l a r l y f o r the metaphoric U n f a m i l i a r t e x t ; there were 378 words, and 2268 p o s s i b l e agreements. The four Language Educators agreed on 2263 placements f o r the F a m i l i a r t e x t ( i . e . , 95 percent) and 2217 f o r the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t ( i . e . , 97.8 percent) g i v i n g an o v e r a l l 65 agreement of 96.4 percent among four independent judges i n i d e n t i f y i n g the idea u n i t s f o r the study. The boundaries were pl a c e d i n a l l p o s i t i o n s where at l e a s t three of the four judges agreed that a boundary should e x i s t . The hig h percentage of agreement among the educators was not unexpected. A r t e r (1976) obtained 94 percent agreement among four independent judges i n i d e n t i f y i n g the idea u n i t s of her metaphoric t e x t , while Meyer and McConkie (1975) obtained 91.5 percent agreement among judges who were both i d e n t i f y i n g idea u n i t s and p l a c i n g them i n t o a l o g i c a l h i e r a r c h y r e f l e c t i n g the s t r u c t u r e of the given t e x t . 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 Each r e c a l l p r o t o c o l was analyzed i n t o a l i s t of idea u n i t s i n the same manner that was employed f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the text base templates. The l i s t of r e c a l l e d idea u n i t s was then compared with the a p p r o p r i a t e text base template, and each idea u n i t c l a s s i f i e d as I n c i d e n t a l , Evoked, or Target (adapted from Drum, 1978). I n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s were exact restatements of idea u n i t s p l u s s e m a n t i c a l l y c o r r e c t ideas which were not exact restatements, minus any t a r g e t idea u n i t s r e c a l l e d . Evoked idea u n i t s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e recombinations of t e x t i d e a s , a d d i t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n e x t e r n a l to the t e x t or general statements which d i d not convey any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . Target idea u n i t s were idea u n i t s c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r the metaphor t a r g e t s or t h e i r l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t statements i n exact restatements or s e m a n t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t statements. 66 5.2.3 S c o r i n g The P r o t o c o l s Raw s c o r e s were a s s i g n e d to each p r o t o c o l f o r the I n c i d e n t a l , Evoked and Target idea u n i t s p r e s e n t . See Appendix E f o r an example of a s c o r e d o r a l f r e e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l . I n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y between two independent judges, Language Educators, f o r a ten percent sample of p r o t o c o l s was c a l c u l a t e d , and an agreement of 91.9 p e r c e n t was obtained. 5.3 Probed R e c a l l Questions. Each s u b j e c t s ' answers t o the probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s were t r a n s c r i b e d from the audio-tape r e c o r d i n g and a n a l y z e d . C o r r e c t raw scores f o r each of the s i x F a c t , s i x I n c i d e n t a l F a c t , and s i x I n f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s were t a b u l a t e d and used i n the a n a l y s i s of d a t a . I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y between two independent judges, Language Ed u c a t o r s , f o r a ten percent sample of probe r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s was c a l c u l a t e d , and an agreement of 96 percent was o b t a i n e d . 5.4 M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor Probes. Raw scores 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 responses to the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor paraphrase t e s t s . These data were not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s because the r e s u l t s r e f l e c t e d the s u b j e c t s ' i n d i v i d u a l comprehension scores, and d i d not appear to p r o v i d e any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The r e s u l t s are, however, d e s c r i b e d i n the f i n d i n g s of the study. 67 5.5 D e b r i e f i n g I n t e r v i e w s . T r a n s c r i p t i o n s of s u b j e c t s ' i n t e r v i e w s were read, and an i n f o r m a l , i n t r o s p e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the info r m a t i o n was made. 6. THE ANALYSIS OF DATA The data y i e l d e d scores on two s e t s of dependent v a r i a b l e s : (a) O r a l Free R e c a l l ( I n c i d e n t a l , Target, and Evoked) and (b) Probed R e c a l l ( F a c t u a l , 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 ) . Each set of dependent v a r i a b l e s , O r a l Free R e c a l l and Probed  R e c a l l , was analyzed i n a separate a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) with a c o v a r i a t e , i n a (2) X (2) X (3) extended f a c t o r i a l design with repeated measures on the t h i r d f a c t o r . The between-s u b j e c t s f a c t o r was V e r s i o n (Metaphoric or L i t e r a l ) and the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r was Topic ( F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r ) . C.T.B.S. reading sub t e s t scores were the c o v a r i a t e . There were twenty-three s u b j e c t s i n each V e r s i o n by Topic c e l l . 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 at the .05 l e v e l . Each set of dependent v a r i a b l e s , O r a l Free R e c a l l and Probed R e c a l l , was a l s o analyzed i n a one-way f i x e d e f f e c t s m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) to c o r r o b o r a t e and c l a r i f y the f i n d i n g s of the ANOVAs. 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 at the .05 l e v e l . 68 IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the e f f e c t s of metaphor on seventh-grade students' comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s with f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s . Two s e t s of dependent v a r i a b l e s were analyzed--one set from O r a l Free  R e c a l l s ( I n c i d e n t a l , Evoked and Target) and one set from Probed  R e c a l l s (Fact, I n c i d e n t a l F a c t , and I n f e r e n t i a l ) . Raw scores f o r each of the s i x dependent v a r i a b l e s were transformed i n t o p r o p o r t i o n a l scores because of the d i f f e r e n t m e t r i c s i n v o l v e d : f o r example, in the O r a l Free R e c a l l s there were e i g h t Target idea u n i t s and seventy-one F a m i l i a r or s i x t y - f o u r U n f a m i l i a r  I n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s to be r e c a l l e d from each t e x t , and in the Probed R e c a l l s there were s i x F a c t , s i x I n c i d e n t a l Fact and three I n f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s to be answered f o r each t e x t . The p r o p o r t i o n a l scores were then transformed i n t o r a d i a n s by means of the a r c s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (Winer, 1971) i n order to s t a b i l i z e the v a r i a n c e s and to preclude any systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p between the means and the v a r i a n c e s . Each set of dependent v a r i a b l e s , O r a l Free R e c a l l and Probed R e c a l l , was analyzed i n a separate a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) i n a 2 (Version) X 2(Topic) X 3(Dependent V a r i a b l e s ) extended f a c t o r i a l design with repeated measures on the t h i r d f a c t o r . The BMDP:2V.7 s t a t i s t i c a l program (Dixon, 1983) was used f o r the a n a l y s e s . The c o v a r i a t e , CTBS Reading Subtest sc o r e s , proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t : O r a l Free R e c a l l - F (1,43) = 8.58, 2 < - 0 5 ' a n d Probed R e c a l l - F (1,43) = 11.81, p_ < .05. A d j u s t e d c e l l means were t h e r e f o r e used in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 69 r e s u l t s . The between-subjects f a c t o r was V e r s i o n (Metaphoric or L i t e r a l ) and the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r was Topic ( F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r ) . There were twenty-three s u b j e c t s i n each V e r s i o n by Topic c e l l . 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 at the .05 l e v e l . R e s u l t s of the ANOVAs on the two s e t s of dependent v a r i a b l e s are presented i n Tables I I I and IV i n Appendix I. Each set of dependent v a r i a b l e s , O r a l Free R e c a l l and Probed R e c a l l , was a l s o analyzed i n a one-way f i x e d e f f e c t s m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) using the UBC:SPSS MANOVA s t a t i s t i c a l program ( L a i , 1983). These f u r t h e r analyses were conducted to c o r r o b o r a t e and c l a r i f y the f i n d i n g s of the ANOVAs. For both analyses, the between-subjects f a c t o r was V e r s i o n (Metaphoric or L i t e r a l ) and the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r was Topic ( F a m i l i a r and U n f a m i l i a r ) . CTBS Reading Subtest scores were the c o v a r i a t e . There were twenty-three s u b j e c t s i n each V e r s i o n by Topic c e l l . 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 at the .05 l e v e l . R e s u l t s of the MANOVAs on the two s e t s of dependent v a r i a b l e s are presented i n Tables V to X i n c l u s i v e i n Appendix I_. Two s e t s of r e s e a r c h hypotheses were t e s t e d i n the s t u d y — one set d e a l i n g with the e f f e c t s of Metaphor on the comprehension of t e x t , and the other with the e f f e c t s of Topic on the comprehension of Metaphoric t e x t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , the f i n d i n g s of the study are r e p o r t e d under the f o l l o w i n g headings: 1. E f f e c t of Metaphor 2. E f f e c t of Topic on Metaphoric Texts 70 1. EFFECT OF METAPHOR The n u l l h y p o thesis examined i n t h i s study i s as f o l l o w s : there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors. S p e c i f i c hypotheses were formulated f o r O r a l Free R e c a l l and f o r Probed  R e c a l l . The three n u l l hypotheses r e l a t i v e to O r a l Free R e c a l l are as f o l l o w s : (1) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of Target t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (2) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of 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 from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (3) The number of Evoked ideas present i n students' f r e e r e c a l l of Metaphoric t e x t s and the number i n t h e i r r e c a l l of L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The ANOVA of the three O r a l Free R e c a l l v a r i a b l e s (Target, I n c i d e n t a l and Evoked) r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r Ve r s i o n (Metaphoric or L i t e r a l ) , F (1,43) = 1.07, p > .05. Re s u l t s of the ANOVA are presented i n Table III i n Appendix J_. S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s were noted i n the MANOVA i n which no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n was found on any of the v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s are presented i n Tables V, VI and VII in Appendix I_. N u l l hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 re g a r d i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between students' O r a l Free R e c a l l of Target, I n c i d e n t a l and Evoked idea u n i t s from t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors 71 and from t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors were accepted. The f i n d i n g s i n regard to Target r e c a l l , however, were i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . Although the main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , 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 V e r s i o n and T o p i c , T = -3.17930, p_ < .05, which i n d i c a t e s that V e r s i o n had d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on on Target r e c a l l depending on the Topic of the t e x t . These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table VII i n Appendix I_, and are d i s c u s s e d under E f f e c t of Topic on Metaphoric T e x t s . Three n u l l hypotheses r e l a t i n g to Probed R e c a l l were a l s o formulated. They are as f o l l o w s : (4) Students' probed r e c a l l of F a c t u a l t a r g e t t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (5) Students' probed r e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l text i n f o r m a t i o n from Metaphoric t e x t s and t h e i r r e c a l l from L i t e r a l t e x t s are 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 of I n f e r e n c e s from t a r g e t s i n Metaphoric t e x t s and the number from t a r g e t s i n L i t e r a l t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The ANOVA of the three Probed R e c a l l v a r i a b l e s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n , F (1,43) = 0.98, p_ > .05. These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table IV i n Appendix I_. S i m i l a r l y , the MANOVA r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n on any of the v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s are presented i n T a bles V I I I , IX and X i n Appendix I_. Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 72 r e g a r d i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between students' Probed R e c a l l of F a c t u a l , 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 i n f o r m a t i o n from t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and from t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors were accepted. The f i n d i n g s i n regard to I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l , however, were i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . Although the main e f f e c t f o r V e r s i o n was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , there 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 V e r s i o n and T o p i c , T = 2.13237, p < .05, which i n d i c a t e s that V e r s i o n had d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l r e c a l l depending on the Topic of the t e x t . These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table IX i n Appendix I_ and are d i s c u s s e d under E f f e c t of T o p ic on Metaphoric T e x t s . 2. EFFECT OF TOPIC ON METAPHORIC TEXTS T h i s study proposed that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of the F a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r comprehension of the Unfami 1 i a r  Metaphoric t e x t . S p e c i f i c hypotheses were formulated f o r O r a l  Free R e c a l l , f o r Probed R e c a l l and f o r the Metaphor Probe. The three n u l l hypotheses r e l a t i v e to O r a l Free R e c a l l are as f o l l o w s : (1) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of Target t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (2) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of 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 from F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (3) Students' f r e e r e c a l l of Evoked idea u n i t s from 73 F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The ANOVA of the three O r a l Free R e c a l l v a r i a b l e s r e v e a l e d a 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 and T o p i c , F (1,44) = 6.44, p < »05. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n was complicated by a s i g n i f i c a n t three-way i n t e r a c t i o n amongst V e r s i o n , Topic and the dependent v a r i a b l e s , F (2,88) = 8.67, p < .05. These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table III i n Appendix I_. The MANOVA c o r r o b o r a t e d these f i n d i n g s and i m p l i c a t e d Target r e c a l l as the main i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e (see Table VII i n Appendix I_ ) . The MANOVA showed that there 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 V e r s i o n and Topic on Target r e c a l l , T = -3.17930, p < .05. Students who read the Metaphoric v e r s i o n s scored higher on Target r e c a l l on the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n ra d i a n s = 1.134) than on the F a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n radi a n s = 0.860), whereas students who read the L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s scored lower on the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n radians = 0.923) than on the F a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n ra d i a n s = 1.214). The i n t e r a c t i o n between V e r s i o n and Topic on Target r e c a l l i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 1 below.. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between the two means, F a m i l i a r Metaphoric and U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric, was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the d i f f e r e n c e method f o r c o r r e l a t e d samples (Ferguson, 1981). The means were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l ( c r i t i c a l v a l u e of t (22, .05) = 2.074; c a l c u l a t e d value of t = 8.199) and Hypothesis 1 was not accepted. 74 For Evoked r e c a l l and I n c i d e n t a l r e c a l l 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 between the F a m i l i a r and the U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t s , and Hypotheses 2 and 3 were a c c e p t e d . These r e s u l t s are pr e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s VI and VII i n Appendix I_. to EH RADIANS 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.214 0.923 1.134 Unfamiliar 0.860 Familiar Literal VERSION Metaphoric Figure 1 Significant Interaction Between Version and Topic on Target Oral Free Recall 75 Three s p e c i f i c hypotheses r e l a t i n g to Probed R e c a l l were a l s o formulated. They are as f o l l o w s : (4) Students' probed r e c a l l of F a c t u a l t a r g e t t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . (5) Students' probed r e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n from the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c a l l from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t are 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 of Infe r e n c e s from t a r g e t s i n the F a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t s and the number from t a r g e t s i n the U n f a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . I t i s to be noted t h a t , although Topic was not a v a r i a b l e of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study, a main e f f e c t f o r Topic on the Probed  R e c a l l measures was r e v e a l e d by the ANOVA, F (1,44) = 10.19, p < .05. R e s u l t s of the ANOVA are presented i n Table IV i n Appendix I_. Students scored higher on the F a m i l i a r t o p i c than on the U n f a m i l i a r t o p i c f o r both the Metaphoric and the L i t e r a l v e r s i o n s , t h e r e being no i n t e r a c t i o n between Topic and V e r s i o n . The sum of the means i n rad i a n s f o r Probed R e c a l l i n V e r s i o n by Topic c e l l s were as f o l l o w s : F a m i l i a r Metaphoric = 6.537, U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric = 5.26; F a m i l i a r L i t e r a l = 6.40, U n f a m i l i a r L i t e r a l = 6.04. The ANOVA a l s o r e v e a l e d 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 Topic and the dependent v a r i a b l e s , F (2,88) = 5.04, £ < .05. T h i s 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 the 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  Probed R e c a l l as the measures r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the Topic e f f e c t . These r e s u l t s are presented i n Tables V I I I , IX and X i n Appendix I. The r e s u l t s of the MANOVA revealed that 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 , there 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 Topic 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 Topic, T = 2.04847, p_ < .05. Students who read the Metaphoric v e r s i o n s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n radians = 1.833) than on the F a m i l i a r t e x t (mean i n radians = 2.290), thus Hypothesis 5 was not accepted. C e l l means and the i n t e r a c t i o n between V e r s i o n and Topic are 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 of the MANOVA revealed that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between Topic 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 or for I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l . For I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l , however, means f o r both the Metaphoric and the 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 higher f o r the Fami1iar t e x t than f o r the U n f a m i l i a r t e x t , due t o the main e f f e c t f o r Topic on t h i s measure, T = 3.15664, p_ < .05. On the b a s i s of these f i n d i n g s , Hypothesis 4 was accepted w h i l e Hypothesis 6 was not accepted. C e l l means f o r the Probed R e c a l l measures are presented i n Table I I below. Table II Topic Means for Metaphoric Texts on Probed Recall Measures Measure Topic T-Value Sig. of T Unfamiliar 1.770 .17117 .864 1.833 2.04847 .044* 1.657 3.15664 .002* Familiar Fact 1.723 Incidental 0 O Q n Fact 2 * 2 9 0 Inferential 2.524 * p_<.05 78 One h y p o t h e s i s r e l a t i n g to the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e Metaphor  Probe was a l s o formulated. I t i s as f o l l o w s : (7) Students' r e c o g n i t i o n of the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Metaphor T a r g e t s from the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n of those from the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Data from the Metaphor Probe were not i n c l u d e d i n the ANOVA or the MANOVA. Students' responses to the F a m i l i a r and the U n f a m i l i a r m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s , however, were compared using the procedure f o r 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 d i f f e r e n c e between two means f o r c o r r e l a t e d samples (Ferguson, 1981). The means ( F a m i l i a r = 6.39, U n f a m i l i a r = 6.65) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l ( c r i t i c a l v a lue of t (22, .05) = 2.074; c a l c u l a t e d value of t = 5.23). Hypothesis 7 was r e j e c t e d . 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 F i n d i n g Regarding The E f f e c t Of Metaphor (1) There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between students' comprehension of the Metaphoric and the L i t e r a l t e x t s on any of the three O r a l Free R e c a l l measures or on any of the Probed  R e c a l l measures. 3.2 F i n d i n g s Regarding The E f f e c t Of Topic On Metaphoric Texts (1) Students' O r a l Free R e c a l l of Target idea u n i t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r f o r the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t than f o r the FamiH-ar-Metaphoric t e x t . (2) Students' r e c o g n i t i o n of the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Metaphor T a r g e t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r f o r the U n f a m i l i a r 79 Metaphoric t e x t than f o r the F a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t . (3) Students' Probed R e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r f o r the F a m i l i a r  Metaphoric t e x t than f o r the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t . (4) There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the F a m i l i a r and the U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric t e x t s on: students' O r a l  Free R e c a l l of I n c i d e n t a l idea u n i t s , students' O r a l Free R e c a l l of Evoked idea u n i t s and t h e i r Probed R e c a l l of F a c t u a l t a r g e t idea u n i t s . 80 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In t h i s chapter the f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4 are d i s c u s s e d and eval u a t e d and p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e are presented. Con c l u s i o n s drawn from the study are repor t e d and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h are proposed. The present study was designed to answer two qu e s t i o n s about the e f f e c t s of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t , namely: (1) Is there a d i f f e r e n c e between c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors? (2) Is there a d i f f e r e n c e between c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of metaphoric.texts on a f a m i l i a r t o p i c and t h e i r comprehension of metaphoric t e x t s on an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c ? 1. THE EFFECT OF METAPHOR ON COMPREHENSION With regard to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n , no d i f f e r e n c e was found between students' comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors. T h i s was true f o r the three measures of o r a l f r e e r e c a l l and f o r the three measures of probed r e c a l l . A l l s i x n u l l hypotheses concerning the e f f e c t s of metaphor on c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of text were thus accepted. The f i n d i n g s of the present study support the f i n d i n g s of pr e v i o u s res e a r c h ( A r t e r , 1 976; and Pearson et al_ . , 1979). A r t e r found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between her si x t h - g r a d e 81 students' comprehension of a metaphoric tex t and t h e i r comprehension of an e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l t e x t except f o r her low-a b i l i t y students who performed b e t t e r on m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s about i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l i n the metaphoric t e x t than on the same kind of q u e s t i o n s f o r the l i t e r a l t e x t . ( A r t e r suggested that t h i s f i n d i n g was probably due to the f a c t t h a t low v e r b a l a b i l i t y students tend to have l e s s e f f e c t i v e study s t r a t e g i e s than middle and hig h v e r b a l a b i l i t y students and that the metaphors l i k e l y encouraged f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g of the m a t e r i a l thus h e l p i n g t h e i r comprehension.) Pearson, Raphael, TePaske and Hyser (1979), u s i n g s u b j e c t s of high and low a b i l i t y at the t h i r d and s i x t h - g r a d e l e v e l s , found no d i f f e r e n c e i n comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l p hrases. The f i n d i n g that metaphor d i d not a f f e c t students' r e c a l l of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t may be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that the metaphoric v e r s i o n s were at l e a s t as comprehensible and as memorable as the l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n t r a r y t o the c l a i m s by Cunningham (1976) and Winkeljohann (1979) that metaphoric language makes f o r d i f f i c u l t y i n readi n g comprehension. The f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with the claims of Ortony et a l . (1978) and Baldwin et a l . (1982) that the d i f f i c u l t y of p r o c e s s i n g metaphoric language i s not a f u n c t i o n of n o n - l i t e r a l n e s s but depends upon the s u b j e c t s ' knowledge of the v e h i c l e of the metaphor and upon the r e l a t e d n e s s of the context surrounding the metaphor. 82 These c l a i m s c a r r y p e d a g o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s which have a l r e a d y been addressed in p a r t by Baldwin e_t a l . (1982). They suggest that i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n comprehend metaphor i n t e x t may l i e i n i n c r e a s i n g students' knowledge, r a t h e r than in i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to analyze and i n t e r p r e t language forms. Thus i s would appear that educators may best be concerned with d e s i g n i n g c u r r i c u l u m e xperiences to develop students' v o c a b u l a r y , to develop t h e i r knowledge of the world and c u l t u r a l c onventions, and to in c r e a s e t h e i r e x periences with language and l i t e r a t u r e , r a t h e r than with d e s i g n i n g d i r e c t metaphor comprehension t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . 2. THE EFFECT OF TOPIC ON COMPREHENSION OF METAPHORIC TEXTS The second q u e s t i o n examined i n the present study was: Is there a d i f f e r e n c e between c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of metaphoric t e x t s on a f a m i l i a r t o p i c and t h e i r comprehension of metaphoric t e x t s on an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c ? On the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l measures, students' r e c a l l of the t a r g e t metaphors was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r f o r the text on the u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c than i t was f o r the t e x t on the f a m i l i a r t o p i c . M a t e r i a l other than the t a r g e t metaphors, however, was not r e c a l l e d b e t t e r f o r the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t than f o r the f a m i l i a r t e x t . There was a s i m i l a r r e s u l t i n favour of the u n f a m i l i a r metaphoric t e x t on the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e metaphor probe. In t h i s m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e w r i t t e n t e s t of students' a b i l i t y to recognize the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the metaphors, students performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on the u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c than on the f a m i l i a r t o p i c . 83 On the probed r e c a l l measures, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r t o p i c with a higher o v e r a l l score f o r the f a m i l i a r t e x t than f o r the u n f a m i l i a r . A t o p i c e f f e c t i n favour of the f a m i l i a r t o p i c might have been expected. One i n f l u e n t i a l theory of r e a d i n g comprehension (e.g., Anderson, 1977; and Rumelhart, 1980) suggests that readers c o n s t r u c t meanings based p a r t l y on the t e x t and p a r t l y on t h e i r p r i o r knowledge. Comprehension may be expected to be b e t t e r on a t o p i c on which a reader knows much than on a t o p i c on which a reader knows l i t t l e . Furthermore, i n t e s t s of r e c a l l of a text j u s t read, r e s u l t s i n e v i t a b l y r e f l e c t not only what s u b j e c t s have l e a r n e d from the t e x t , but pre-e x i s t i n g knowledge as w e l l . For the metaphoric t e x t s i n the present study, s c o r e s f o r both the i n f e r e n t i a l and the i n c i d e n t a l q u e s t i o n s on the probed r e c a l l t e s t were higher f o r the t e x t on the f a m i l i a r t o p i c than they were f o r the text on the u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c , thus r e f l e c t i n g the o v e r a l l t o p i c e f f e c t . In c o n t r a s t , scores f o r the f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s were no d i f f e r e n t f o r the f a m i l i a r and the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t s . These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table II on page 83. In summary, then, scores were higher f o r the u n f a m i l i a r metaphoric t e x t than f o r the f a m i l i a r t e x t on two measures: the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l of the t a r g e t metaphors, and the m u l t i p l e -c h o i c e metaphor probe (a recognition-of-meaning t e s t ) . Both these measures, i t w i l l be noted, i n v o l v e d the t a r g e t metaphors. For a t h i r d measure i n v o l v i n g the t a r g e t metaphors, namely the f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s on the probed r e c a l l t e s t , there was no d i f f e r e n c e between students' comprehension of the f a m i l i a r 84 metaphoric t e x t and t h e i r comprehension of the u n f a m i l i a r metaphoric t e x t . Some d i s c u s s i o n seems warranted about the d i f f e r e n c e between o r a l f r e e r e c a l l and the r e c o g n i t i o n - o f - m e a n i n g t e s t , on the one hand, and probed r e c a l l , on the o t h e r , as measures of comprehension. As a l r e a d y noted, f o r the two former t e s t s of comprehension, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n favour of the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t (that i s , f o r q u e s t i o n s d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with the t a r g e t metaphors). In probed r e c a l l , t here were two s e t s of q u e s t i o n s d e a l i n g with t a r g e t metaphors: f a c t u a l d e a l t with students' a b i l i t y t o remember the f a c t s e x p l i c i t l y conveyed by the metaphors while i n f e r e n t i a l d e a l t w i t h students' a b i l i t y to draw i n f e r e n c e s from the content of the metaphors. As noted above, there was a trend i n . t h e d i r e c t i o n of support f o r f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s i n that scores f o r the u n f a m i l i a r and f a m i l i a r t e x t s were the same, that i s , the main e f f e c t f o r t o p i c was not m a n i f e s t . For i n f e r e n t i a l probe r e c a l l , however, the o v e r a l l t o p i c e f f e c t i n favour of the f a m i l i a r t o p i c was e v i d e n t . These f i n d i n g s are i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that t h e r e may be a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the comprehension e l i c i t e d by probe r e c a l l measures, and the comprehension e l c i t e d by f r e e r e c a l l and recognition-of-meaning measures. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s supported by previous r e s e a r c h . In t h e i r study of 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 , Marr and Gormley (1982) found that p r i o r knowledge and comprehension a b i l i t y were the s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r s of comprehension performance. They a l s o noted that 85 o r a l f r e e r e c a l l measures e l i c i t e d t ext-based responses and that probe r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s encouraged more responses based on p r i o r knowledge. They p o s t u l a t e d that the students p r o v i d e d most of the comprehended i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r o r a l f r e e r e c a l l s , and t h a t , when que s t i o n e d f u r t h e r (probed), they p r o v i d e d whatever seemed r e l e v a n t from t h e i r p r i o r knowledge, that i s , t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with the t o p i c . Furthermore, they noted that g e n e r a l p r i o r knowledge of the t o p i c s was the s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r of the students' a b i l i t y to draw i n f e r e n c e s and e l a b o r a t e . T h i s n o t i o n r e c e i v e s support from the work of Johnson (1983) and T i e r n e y , Bridge and Cera (1978) which suggests that probed r e c a l l measures may induce a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g of t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n and thus a g r e a t e r use of p r i o r knowledge, whereas in o r a l f r e e r e c a l l a g r e a t e r r e l i a n c e on t e x t - l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s e v i d e n t . The r e s u l t s d i s c u s s e d above i n d i c a t e that the i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by the metaphors was b e t t e r remembered in u n f a m i l i a r t e x t than i n f a m i l i a r t e x t . These r e s u l t s are i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t metaphor had a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t when the t o p i c of the t e x t was u n f a m i l i a r but not when the t o p i c was f a m i l i a r . The metaphors, however, d i d not a f f e c t memory f o r the surrounding i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l . Pearson, Raphael, TePaske & Hyser (1979) l i k e w i s e found no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r comprehension of surrounding i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l , and they contend that whatever metaphor e f f e c t s e x i s t appear to be l i m i t e d to the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries of the metaphors. The f i n d i n g that metaphor had a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t when 86 the t o p i c of the t e x t was u n f a m i l i a r but not when the t o p i c was f a m i l i a r may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the b r i d g i n g f u n c t i o n of metaphor espoused by Ortony (1975) and P e t r i e (1979): that i s , a metaphor a l l o w s a reader to t r a n s f e r knowledge from the known (the v e h i c l e ) to the unknown (the t o p i c ) . In s i t u a t i o n s where the t o p i c of the t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r , one might expect the metaphor to be more v i v i d and thus more memorable than i t would be i f the t o p i c was more f a m i l i a r . An analogous s i t u a t i o n i s observed with i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n t e x t . I l l u s t r a t i o n s are more u s e f u l — a n d more necessary—when e x p l a i n i n g new concepts. Metaphors are a kind of i l l u s t r a t i o n , a compact and v i v i d image of an idea, concept or experience which i s expressed i n a novel way. In the same way that i l l u s t r a t i o n s are not as u s e f u l or as memorable when they p o r t r a y that which i s al r e a d y known, n e i t h e r are metaphors. The f i n d i n g of the present study regarding the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of metaphor i n u n f a m i l i a r t e x t on the f r e e r e c a l l of t a r g e t metaphors i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n that i t i s a r e s u l t that both A r t e r (1976) and Pearson et a l . (1979) p r e d i c t e d but d i d not ac h i e v e . As shown i n F i g u r e 1 (on page 80), students who read the l i t e r a l v e r s i o n s of the t e x t s r e c a l l e d more t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n from the f a m i l i a r t e x t than from the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t as might have been expected. In c o n t r a s t , students who read the metaphoric v e r s i o n s r e c a l l e d more t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n from the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t . A r t e r (1976) d i d not achieve the p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t due to methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s . Pearson et a l . (1979) produced t h i s r e s u l t only i n the f i r s t of t h e i r three 87 experiments. They were unable to a n a l y z e , i n a meaningful way, the r e s u l t s of t a r g e t f r e e r e c a l l i n t h e i r f i n a l experiment due to a " f l o o r e f f e c t " r e s u l t i n g from poor student r e c a l l . Pearson et a l . s t a t e d that on the average, students r e c a l l e d only 1.0 out of 10 p o s s i b l e t a r g e t idea u n i t s ; that i s , ten percent r e c a l l . In the present study, students r e c a l l e d on the average 2.16 out of 8 p o s s i b l e t a r g e t idea u n i t s ; that i s , 27 percent r e c a l l . The g r e a t e r r a t e of r e c a l l i n the present study may have been a f u n c t i o n of the age and number of s u b j e c t s . Pearson et a l . used 23 t h i r d - g r a d e and 26 s i x t h - g r a d e students while the present study employed 46 seventh-grade students. With regard to the present study, i t i s suggested that the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of metaphor i n u n f a m i l i a r t e x t were evident i n the f r e e r e c a l l and the recognition-of-meaning measures of t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n because students were r e l y i n g p r i m a r i l y on t e x t - l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n to respond. In these t a s k s , the b r i d g i n g f u n c t i o n of metaphor hypothesized by Ortony (1975) and P e t r i e (1979) was able to operate. For students' responses to the probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s , however, no d i f f e r e n c e i n favour of the u n f a m i l i a r scores was produced, although there was an e f f e c t of a k ind f o r f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s . On t h i s measure there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n students' a b i l i t y to answer q u e s t i o n s from the f a m i l i a r and from the u n f a m i l i a r t e x t s . In c o n t r a s t , there was a t o p i c e f f e c t i n favour of the f a m i l i a r t e x t on the other probed r e c a l l measures. I t i s suggested that i n responding to the probed r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s , students r e l i e d more h e a v i l y on t h e i r p r i o r knowledge of t o p i c s than on t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n , 88 i n c l u d i n g the metaphors. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y suggests the need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the nature and r e l a t i o n s h i p of the v a r i o u s measures widely used i n comprehension r e s e a r c h . The f i n d i n g of the present study i n regard to f a c t u a l probe r e c a l l i s consonant with the f i n d i n g of Pearson e_t a l . (1979), d e s p i t e a d i f f e r e n c e . While Pearson et a l . found a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t on f a c t u a l probe r e c a l l i n d i c a t i n g a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t f o r metaphor when the t o p i c of the t e x t was u n f a m i l i a r but not when the t o p i c was f a m i l i a r , the present study found only an e f f e c t of a kind i n that t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n students' answers f o r these q u e s t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g c o n t r a s t e d with the o v e r a l l t o p i c e f f e c t i n favour of the f a m i l i a r which was e v i d e n t f o r the other two measures of probed r e c a l l ( i n f e r e n t i a l and i n c i d e n t a l f a c t u a l ) . I t i s suggested t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n f i n d i n g s between the two s t u d i e s may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f a c t that Pearson et a l . asked f a c t u a l questions c o n c e r n i n g the metaphors only when the t a r g e t had not been v o l u n t a r i l y r e c a l l e d i n the pre c e d i n g o r a l f r e e r e c a l l t a s k . In the present study a l l students were asked the e n t i r e b a t t e r y of probe r e c a l l q u e s t i o n s f o l l o w i n g the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l t ask; 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 i n f o r m a t i o n and a grea t e r s t i m u l a t i o n of prior-knowledge may have been induced i n the present study. Pearson et §_1. d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e the a b i l i t y of t h e i r students to answer i n f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s concerning the metaphors, so a comparison with these f i n d i n g s was not p o s s i b l e . To sum up, then, the f i n d i n g s i n regard to the second 89 q u e s t i o n show that there were indeed d i f f e r e n c e s between students' comprehension of metaphoric t e x t s on an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c and t h e i r comprehension of metaphoric t e x t s on a f a m i l i a r t o p i c . These d i f f e r e n c e s , however, were c o n f i n e d to comprehension of the i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by the t a r g e t metaphors, and were not extended to students' comprehension of surrounding i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l . I t appears that students are a b l e to remember the i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by metaphors and to r e c o g n i z e the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the metaphors b e t t e r when the t o p i c of a metaphoric t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r than when i t i s f a m i l i a r , p o s s i b l y due to the s t i m u l a t i o n of v i v i d imagery and the h y p o t h e s i z e d " b r i d g i n g " f u n c t i o n of metaphor hypothesized by Ortony (1975) and P e t r i e (1979). T h i s suggests that metaphors a c t as i l l u s t r a t i v e m a t e r i a l which may w e l l be used by w r i t e r s of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t to c l a r i f y and to i n c r e a s e memory f o r u n f a m i l i a r concepts. The r e s u l t s of the present study, however, do not lend support to the idea that the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of metaphor extend to t e x t as a whole, that i s , to the surrounding m a t e r i a l . Nonetheless, i t i s p o s s i b l e that t h i s e f f e c t would occur i f the metaphors were p o s i t i o n e d i n idea u n i t s of high s t r u c t u r a l importance. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s augured by the f i n d i n g s of the study by Reynolds and Scwartz (1979), i n which a comparison was made of students' comprehension of passages with e i t h e r l i t e r a l or metaphoric summarizing statements, that i s , u n i t s high i n the s t r u c t u r a l h i e r a r c h y of the t e x t s . These r e s e a r c h e r s found that 90 the metaphoric c o n c l u s i o n s i n c r e a s e d memory for passage i n f o r m a t i o n as a whole. I t should be noted, however, that s e v e r a l t e x t s on u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s , and s e v e r a l t e x t s on f a m i l i a r t o p i c s would be r e q u i r e d i n order to t e s t the e f f e c t s of metaphors in p o s i t i o n s of high s t r u c t u r a l importance upon o v e r a l l t e x t comprehension, f o r short t e x t s c o n t a i n few high l e v e l idea u n i t s . Furthermore, t e x t s densely embedded with metaphors appear u n n a t u r a l ; f o r example, the metaphoric t e x t s employed i n the study by Cunningham (1976). The c o n s t r u c t i o n of t e x t s on f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s which are s i m i l a r i n d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e , and which c o n t a i n approximately the same number of idea u n i t s as w e l l as e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l and metaphoric t a r g e t s i s not a easy tas k . The d i f f i c u l t nature of t h i s task became evident i n the e a r l y stages of the present study. 3. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE Metaphor does not appear to pose a problem to students' comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t , and i n some s i t u a t i o n s (that i s , when the t o p i c of the t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r and the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors are known) metaphor may even f a c i l i t a t e students r e c a l l of i n f o r m a t i o n . As d i s c u s s e d i n the preceding s e c t i o n on the e f f e c t of metaphor, educators may best be concerned with d e s i g n i n g c u r r i c u l u m experiences to develop students' vocabulary, knowledge and experience with language r a t h e r than with d i r e c t metaphor t r a i n i n g e x e r c i s e s . Furthermore, p u b l i s h e r s of c h i l d r e n ' s t e x t s may wish to i n c o r p o r a t e t h i s n a t u r a l language form in t e x t s to i l l u s t r a t e p o s s i b l y u n f a m i l i a r 91 concepts or to enhance the memorability of s p e c i f i c i d e a s , rather than a v o i d i n g using metaphor due to i t s h i t h e r t o supposed troublesome nature. 4. CONCLUSIONS On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s presented i n Chapter 4 and the d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s presented i n the present c h a p t e r , s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s are o f f e r e d . They are as f o l l o w s : (1) There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between students' comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors and t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g e q u i v a l e n t l i t e r a l phrases. (2) Under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , students' a b i l i t y t o remember and to comprehend i n f o r m a t i o n i s f a c i l i t a t e d by metaphors; namely, when the v e h i c l e s of the text are known and when the t o p i c of the t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r . (3) Under these same c o n d i t i o n s , students' a b i l i t y to answer f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s based on the metaphors i s no d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r a b i l i t y to answer f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s from the f a m i l i a r t e x t . T h i s f i n d i n g demonstrates an e f f e c t of a kind, however, fo r t o p i c s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the other measures of probed r e c a l l i n favour of the f a m i l i a r t e x t . (4) The d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s from the f r e e r e c a l l and recognition-of-meaning measures, on the one hand, and the probed r e c a l l measures, on the other, were i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that there are q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the comprehension evidenced by these two s e t s of measures. (5) Metaphor e f f e c t s appear to be l i m i t e d to the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e boundaries of the metaphors. Metaphors do not appear 92 to f a c i l i t a t e the comprehension of the i n c i d e n t a l t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n which they are embedded. (6) Although metaphors appear with some frequency i n b a s a l readers, metaphor i s not a language form which c h i l d r e n need to be taught to analyze and i n t e r p r e t . I f c h i l d r e n are e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s comprehending t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors, they l i k e l y w i l l b e n e f i t from c u r r i c u l u m a c t i v i t i e s designed to b u i l d t h e i r v o c a b u l a r i e s , to help them use c o n t e x t u a l cues as an a i d to comprehension, to expand t h e i r experiences with language and l i t e r a t u r e and to develop t h e i r g e neral knowledge. (7) W r i t e r s and p u b l i s h e r s of c h i l d r e n ' s t e x t s should be aware that metaphor i s not a troublesome aspect of language with which c h i l d r e n need h e l p . Rather, i t i s a n a t u r a l language form which may be used to enhance c h i l d r e n ' s memory and comprehension of s p e c i f i c ideas from a t e x t c o n c e r n i n g a t o p i c with which they are u n f a m i l i a r . 5. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH I t i s apparent that students' comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphors i s as good as t h e i r comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g the l i t e r a l e q u i v a l e n t s of the metaphors, and that under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s — w h e n the t o p i c of the t e x t i s u n f a m i l i a r and when the v e h i c l e s of the metaphors are known— students' a b i l i t y to remember and to comprehend i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by the metaphors i s b e t t e r from a t e x t with an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c than i t i s from a t e x t with a f a m i l i a r t o p i c . There are, however, many more q u e s t i o n s to study i n t h i s s t i l l 93 l a r g e l y unexplored area concerning the e f f e c t s of a s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e (metaphor) on t e x t comprehension and l e a r n i n g . In regard to the nature of the experimental t e x t s , i t would be v a l u a b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of metaphor on comprehension with other types of d i s c o u r s e ; f o r example, n a r r a t i v e and argument. I t would a l s o be v a l u a b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s on comprehension of metaphors i n s p e c i f i c p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r a l h i e r a r c h y of t e x t s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y , i n higher l e v e l p o s i t i o n s i n the s t r u c t u r e . The study by Reynolds and Schwartz (1979) examining the e f f e c t s of metaphoric c o n c l u s i o n s on a d u l t s ' comprehension of t e x t foreshadows t h i s area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f a i l u r e to f i n d metaphor e f f e c t s beyond the boundaries of the metaphor t a r g e t s i n s t u d i e s of c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g metaphor ( A r t e r , 1976; Cunningham, 1976; Pearson et a l . , 1979; Winkeljohann, 1979; and the present study) may be r e l a t e d to the f a c t t h at the s t u d i e s have not c o n t r o l l e d f o r the p o s i t i o n of the metaphors i n the d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e of the experimental t e x t s . Rather, the t e x t s employed have c o n t a i n e d many metaphors i n random p o s i t i o n s . With regard to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b j e c t s , the i n f o r m a l d e b r i e f i n g i n t e r v i e w r e v e a l e d that while some s u b j e c t s enjoyed re a d i n g about an unknown t o p i c (Wombats) and meeting unusual uses of language (metaphors), many d i d not. I t would be v a l u a b l e to c o n s i d e r s p e c i f i c aspects of the a f f e c t i v e d o m ain— a t t i t u d e towards rea d i n g , l e a r n i n g s t y l e , i n t e r e s t i n the unknown—when d e s i g n i n g f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t s of 94 metaphor on t e x t comprehension and l e a r n i n g . In regard to the reading s t r a t e g i e s employed by the s u b j e c t s , an o r a l r a t h e r than a s i l e n t reading of the experimental t e x t s would l i k e l y p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l complementary infor m a t i o n to a s s i s t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of metaphor on. students' comprehension of t e x t . F i n a l l y , with regard to the c r i t e r i a l t a s k s , the d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s of the o r a l f r e e r e c a l l and recognition-of-meaning measures, and the probed r e c a l l measures bear f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n both in terms of metaphor e f f e c t s and measurement of te x t comprehension. Are the d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s a r e s u l t of the d i f f e r e n t i n t e g r a t i o n , r e t r i e v a l and/or p r o d u c t i o n demands of the tasks? What i s the q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n comprehension evidenced by f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n measures? Would these d i f f e r e n c e s be a l t e r e d i f delayed as w e l l as immediate comprehension measures were employed? Furthermore, i s there a c o n t r i b u t i n g e f f e c t of the " i n e x p r e s s i b i l i t y " t h e s i s of metaphor proposed by Ortony (1975)? Perhaps students are b e t t e r -able to r e c a l l and to recognize the meanings of metaphors about u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s than those about f a m i l i a r t o p i c s due to t h e i r " v i v i d n e s s " , but when students are probed for i n f o r m a t i o n , they f i n d i t as d i f f i c u l t or more d i f f i c u l t to i n t e g r a t e the new i n f o r m a t i o n , to draw i n f e r e n c e s , and to express themselves i n an a p p r o p r i a t e o r a l answer due to the g r e a t e r "compactness" and " i n e x p r e s s i b i l i t y " of a metaphor on an u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t s of t o p i c on the comprehension of e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g 95 metaphors as w e l l as on the r e l a t i o n s h i p and nature of v a r i o u s measures of comprehension i s warranted. 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Anderson, C. The psychology of metaphor. J o u r n a l of  Genetic Psychology, 1964, 105, 53-73. 2. Anderson, R. C. How to c o n s t r u c t achievement t e s t s to assess comprehension. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1972, 42, 145-170. 3. Anderson, R. The n o t i o n of schemata and the e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e . In R. Anderson, R. S p i r o and W. Montague (Eds.), S c h o o l i n g and the A c q u i s i t i o n of Knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum, 1977. 4. Anderson, R. C. and Ortony, A. On p u t t i n g apples i n t o b o t t l e s - a problem of polysemy. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1975, 7, 167-180. 5. Anderson, 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 u n r e c a l l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a s h i f t i n p e r s p e c t i v e . 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 Behaviour, 1978, 17, 1-12. 6. Anderson, R. C , Reynolds, R. E., S c h a l l e r t , D. L. and Goetz, E. T. Frameworks f o r comprehending d i s c o u r s e . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research 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 of phrase 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 . Pschonomic Science, 1968, j_0, 343-344. 8. A r l i n , P. K. Metaphors and thought i n c h i l d r e n . ERIBC Report No. 78:25. 9. A r t e r , J . L. The e f f e c t s of metaphor on reading  comprehension. 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 , 1976. 10. Asch, S. and Nerlove, H. The development of double f u n c t i o n terms i n c h i l d r e n : an e x p l o r a t i o n study. In B. Kaplan 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 Theory, New York: 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. Baldwin, R. S., Luce, T. S. and Readance, J . E. The impact of subschemata on me t a p h o r i c a l p r o c e s s i n g . Reading  Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1982, J_7f 528-543. 12. B e r e i t e r , C. and Scardamalia, M. From c o n v e r s a t i o n to composition: the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a developmental p r o c e s s . In R. G l a s e r (Ed.), Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l  psychology, ( V o l . 2 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1982. 97 13. B i l l o w , R. M. A c o g n i t i v e developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 1975, JJ_, 415-423. 14. B i l l o w , R. M. Metaphor: a review of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1977, 84, 81-92. 15. Black, M. Metaphor. In M. Black, Models and Metaphors:  s t u d i e s i n language and p h i l o s o p h y . I t h a c a , N.Y.: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1962. 16. Black, M. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: 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. H., and Krathwohl, 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 . New York: David McKay and Co., 1956. 18. Campbell, P. N. Metaphor and l i n g u i s t i c t heory. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Speech, 1 975, 6J_, 1-12. 19. Chodos, L. and Mosenthal, P. Fourth graders' comprehension of s t o r y s t r u c t u r e s under three r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n s . In P. D. Pearson and J . Hansen (Eds.), Reading: d i s c i p l i n e d i n q u i r y i n process 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 language 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 Behavior, 1973, 12, 335-359. 21. C o r b e t t , E. P u b l i c double-speak - I f I speak with forked tongue. E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 1976, 65 (4), 16-17. 22. C r a i k , I. M. and Lockhart, R. S. L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : a framework for memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning  V e r b a l Behavior, 1972, JJ_, 671-684. 23. Crowcroft, P. A u s t r a l i a n m a r s u p i a l s . London: The Bodley Head, 1970. 24. Cunningham, J . W. Metaphor and reading comprehension. J o u r n a l of Reading Behavior, 1976, 8, 363-368. 25. Dale, 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 . E d u c a t i o n a l Research B u l l e t i n , 1948, 27, 37-54. 98 26. Dixon, W. J . (Ed.) BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l Software. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r ess, 1983. 27. D r e i s t a d t , R. An a n a l y s i s of the use of 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 of Psychology, 1968, 68, 97-116. 28. Drum, P. A. Prose r e c a l l responses and c a t e g o r i e s f o r s c o r i n g . In P. D. Pearson and J . Hansen (Eds.), Reading:  d i s c i p l i n e d i n q u i r y i n process 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. 29. Emig, J . C h i l d r e n and Metaphor. Research i n the Teaching  of E n g l i s h , 1972, 6, 163-175. 30. Ferguson, G. A. S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology and  Ed u c a t i o n . (5th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981. 31. Fodor, J . A. and Bever, T. G. The p s c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c segments. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning and  V e r b a l Behaviour, 1965, 4, 414-420. 32. F r y , E. A r e a d a b i l i t y formula that saves time. J o u r n a l  of Reading, 1968, JM, 513-6 and 575-8. 33. Gambell, T. J . and McFetridge, P. A. C h i l d r e n , s i m i l i e s , metaphors and reading go t o g e t h e r . Reading - Canada -L e c t u r e , 1981, J_, 29-35. 34. Gardner, H. Metaphors 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. C h i l d  Development, 1974, 4_5, 84-91. 35. Gardner, H., K i r c h e r , M., Winner, E. and P e r k i n s , D. C h i l d r e n ' s metaphoric 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 of C h i l d Language, 1974, 2, 125-141. 36. Gaus, P. J . Recent r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n ' s metaphoric  understanding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the I.R.A. 24th, A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a . A p r i l 23-27th, 1979. 37. Gentner, D. C h i l d r e n ' s performance on a s p a t i a l a n a l o g i e s tas k . C h i l d Development, 1977, 48, 1034-1039. 38. Green, T. F. Learning without metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 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 assessment of l i t e r a t u r e : two reviews. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1975, 9, 80-106. 99 40. G u t h r i e , J . T. Research: Metaphor. J o u r n a l of Reading, 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. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: theory, r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e . Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l Reading Conference, 1977. 42. H a r r i s , T. L. and Hodges, R. E. (Eds.), A d i c t i o n a r y of  reading and r e l a t e d terms. Newark, Delaware: I.R.A., 1981. 43. Hayes, D. A. and Mateja, J . A. Long term t r a n s f e r e f f e c t  of metaphoric a l l u s i o n . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Los Angeles, A p r i l 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 200 930). 44. Hayes, D. A. and T i e r n e y , R. J . Developing r e a d e r s ' knowledge through analogy. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1982, r7, 256-280. 45. Haynes, F. Metaphor as i n t e r a c t i v e . E d u c a t i o n a l Theory, 1975, 25, 272-277. 46. Hoffman, R. R. and Honeck, R. P. A peacock looks at 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 language. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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.: Erlbaum, 1980. 47. H o l s t e i n , B. I. The use of metaphor to induce 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 grade 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 notes on f i g u r a t i v e language. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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.: Erlbaum, 1980. 49. Johnson, 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 the problems of metaphor. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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.: Erlbaum, 1980. 50. Johnson, M. G. and Malgady, R. G. Toward a p e r c e p t u a l theory of metaphoric comprehension. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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.: Erlbaum, 1980. 51. Johnson, N. F. The p s c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of phrase-s t r u c t u r e r u 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  Behaviour, 1965, 4, 469-475. 100 52. Johnson, R. E. R e c a l l of prose as a f u n c t i o n of the 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 Learning and V e r b a l Behavior, 1970, 9, 12-20. 53. Johnston, P. H. Reading comprehension assessment; a  c o g n i t i v e b a s i s . Newark, Delaware: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 1983. 54. King, E. M. (Ed.) Canadian T e s t s of Basic S k i l l s . ( Metric Ed.) Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o : T. Nelson & Sons (Canada), 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 of meaning i n memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. 56. K i n t s c h , W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J . , McKoon, G., and Keenan, J . M. Comprehension and r e c a l l of 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 Learning  and V e r b a l Behaviour, 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 the S o c i a l  S c i e n c e s . Vancouver: UBC Computing Centre, 1983. 58. Malgady, R. G. and Johnson, M. G. M o d i f i e r s i n metaphors: e f f e c t s of c o n s t i t u e n t phrase s i m i l a r i t y on the 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 sentences. J o u r n a l of  P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1976, 5, 43-52. 59. Marr, M. B. and Gormley, 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 . Reading Research 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 poetry p r e f e r e n c e s : a review. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1975, 9, 107-110. 61. Mayer, R. E. D i f f e r e n t problem s o l v i n g competencies e s t a b l i s h e d i n l e a r n i n g computer programming with and without meaningful models. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology, 1975, 67, 725-734. 62. McClosky, M. Metaphors. Mind, 1964, 73, 215-233. 63. McClung, R. M. Hunted mammals of the sea. New York: Wm. Morrow & Co., 1978. 64. Meyer, B. J . F. The o r g a n i z a t i o n of prose and i t s e f f e c t s  on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975. 65. Meyer, B. J . F. and McConkie, 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 Psychology, 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 comprehension. Elementary  E n g l i s h , 1974, 51_, 853-4, 857. 101 67. M i l l e r , R. M. The dubious case f o r metaphors i n e d u c a t i o n a l w r i t i n g . E d u c a t i o n a l Theory, 1976, 26, 17 4— 181 . 68. Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not j u s t n i c e . E d u c a t i o n a l Theory, 1975, 25, 45-53. 69. Ortony, A. On the nature and value of metaphor. A - r e p l y to my c r i t i c s . E d u c a t i o n a l Theory, 1976, 26, 45-53. 70. Ortony, A. Beyond l i t e r a l s i m i l a r i t y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review, 1979, 86, 161-180. (a) 71. Ortony, A. Metaphor: a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l problem. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979. (b) 72. Ortony, A. Some p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c a spects of metaphor. Centre f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 112, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1979. (c) 73. Ortony, A. The r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y i n s i m i l e s and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979. Cdl 74. Ortony, A. Metaphor. In R. J . S p i r o , B. C. Bruce and W. F. Brewer, T h e o r e t i c a l Issues i n reading comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. (a) 75. Ortony, A. Understanding metaphors. Centre f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 154, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1980. (b) 76. Ortony, A., Reynolds, 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 . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n , 1978, 85, 919-943. 77. Ortony, A., S c h a l l e r t , D. L., Reynolds, R. E. and Antos, S. J . I n t e r p r e t i n g metaphors and idioms: some e f f e c t s of context on comprehension. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning and  V e r b a l Behavior, 1978, J_7, 465-477. 78. Osgood, C. E. The c o g n i t i v e dynamics of s y n e s t h e s i a and metaphor. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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.: Erlbaum, 1980. 79. P a i v i o , A. P s y c h o l o g i c a l processes i n the comprehension of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979. 1 02 80. Pearson, P. D. and Johnson, D. D. Teaching reading  comprehension. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1978. 81. Pearson, P. D., Raphael, T. E., TePaske, N. and Hyser, C. The f u n c t i o n of metaphor in c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l of  e x p o s i t o r y passages. Centre f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 131, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1979. 82. P e r r i n e , L. Four forms of metaphor. C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 1971, 33, 125-138. 83. P e t r i e , H. G. Metaphor and l e a r n i n g . In A. Ortony ( E d . ) , Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1979. 84. P o l l i o , M. and P o l l i o , H. The development of 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  Research, 1974, 3, 185-201. 85. P o l l i o , H. R., Barlow, J . M., F i n e , H. J . , and P o l l i o , M. R. Psychology and the p o e t i c s of growth: f i g u r a t i v e  language i n psychology, psychotherapy and e d u c a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erlbaum, 1977". 86. P o l l i o , M. R. and Pickens, J . D. The developmental s t r u c t u r e of f i g u r a t i v e competence. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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 . : Erlbaum, 1980. 87. Reinsch, N. L. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of the metaphor and s i m i l e i n persua s i v e d i s c o u r s e . Speech  Monographs, 1971, 38, 142-145. 88. Reynolds, R. E. and Ortony, A. Some i s s u e s i n the measurement of c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of m e t a p h o r i c a l language. Centre f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 172, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1980. 89. Reynolds, R. E. and Schwartz, R. M. The r e l a t i o n of  metaphoric p r o c e s s i n g to the comprehension and memory of  prose. Paper presented at the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research 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 philosophy of r h e t o r i c . London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1936. 91. Rumelhart, D. Schemata: the b u i l d i n g b l o c k s of c o g n i t i o n . In R. S p i r o , B. Bruce and W. Brewer (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l  Issues i n Reading and Comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum, 1980. 103 92. Schwartz, R. M. L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : the s t r a t e g i c demands of reading comprehension. Reading Research  Q u a r t e r l y , 1980, J_5, 433-450. 93. S e a r l e , J . R. Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and  Thought. Cambridge: 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 metaphorical method. J o u r n a l of  A e s t h e t i c Education-, 1974, 8, 25-36. 95. Smith, J . W. C h i l d r e n ' s understanding of w r i t t e n metaphor 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 A l b e r t a , 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. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 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 of g e n e r a l concepts and d e t a i l s a f t e r r e a d i n g . In M. L. Kamil and A. J . Moe (Eds.), Reading r e s e a r c h : s t u d i e s and  a p p l i c a t i o n s . Twenty-eighth Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l Reading Conference, 1979. 98. T i e r n e y , R. J . , Bridge, C. and Cera, 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. Research on t e a c h i n g  r e a d i n g comprehension. Centre f o r the Study of Reading, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 187, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1980. 100. Turner, A. and Greene, E. The c o n s t r u c t i o n and use of  p r o p o s i t i o n a l t e x t 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 Behavior, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 63, U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado at Boulder, 1977. 101. V a l e r i , M. and Smith, E. F i g u r a t i v e Language: How i s i t Used i n Basal Readings? Reading Horizons, 1983, 23, 170-174. 102. van D i j k , T. A. Formal semantics of m e t a p h o r i c a l d i s c o u r s e . P o e t i c s , 1975, 4, 173-198. 103. Verbrugge, R. R. Transformations i n knowing: a r e a l i s t view of 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 language. H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erlbaum, 1980. 104 104. Verbrugge, 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 reminding and resembling. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 9, 494-533. 105. Winer, B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental  Design (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. ~~ 106. Winkeljohann, R. J . The e f f e c t s of the extent to which  metaphors ( f i g u r a t i v e language) appear i n prose on the  reading comprehension of s e l e c t e d groups of f i f t h and  e i g h t h grade elementary school students. 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 , Urbana-Champaign, 1979. 107. Winner, E., E n g e l , M. and Gardner, H. Misunderstanding metaphor: what's the problem? J o u r n a l of Experimental  C h i l d Psychology, 1980, 30, 22-32. 108. Winner, E., McCarthy, M. and Gardner, H. The ontogenesis of metaphor. In R. P. Honeck and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), 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 . : Erlbaum, 1980. 109. Winner, E., R o s e n t i e l , A. K. and Gardner, H. The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental  Psychology, 1976, J_2, 289-297. OF TEXT IS 1 GO 1 05 APPENDIX A - FAMILIAR TEXT Among the snow covered i s l a n d s and i c y waters of the A r c t i c coast l i v e s the second l a r g e s t bear i n the world - the 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 animal  (marshmallow g i a n t ) stands one to one and a h a l f meters high at the s h o u l d e r s , and i s about two and a h a l f meters long from nose to t a i l . P o l a r bears are w e l l adapted to t h e i r a r c t i c home. T h e i r white f u r c o a t s (shag rugs) make them d i f f i c u l t to see a g a i n s t the i c e and snow, and keep them warm i n the sub-zero temperatures. An e x t r a membrane ( B u i l t - i n sunglasses) over t h e i r small black eyes p r o t e c t s them from the g l a r e of the ice' and snow. Large paws with fur between the pads give them a non- s l i p g r i p (a g r i p l i k e studded snow t i r e s ) as they move across the i c e . T h e i r strong l e g s can spread wide apart when they walk so that although they may weigh as much as four hundred  kilograms (a l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r ) , they can t r a v e l a c r o s s i c e too t h i n t o h o l d up a man. L i k e most bears, the p o l a r bear l i v e s alone. P o l a r bears only come together f o r a few days i n the s p r i n g to mate. The pregnant female then has a l l summer to gain weight 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 the coming w i n t e r . In the f a l l , the female d i g s a den (a cozy animal i g l o o ) f o r h e r s e l f i n a snowy sl o p e . She then takes her winter s l e e p , and i n December or January, g i v e s b i r t h to two cubs. By l a t e March, the cubs are a l l f u r r e d out, and weigh about s i x kilograms each. They are then ready to go o u t s i d e (to leave t h e i r s h e l t e r e d cocoon). The cubs stay with t h e i r mother while she hunts, and soon they l e a r n to hunt and swim. A f t e r two years they leave t h e i r mother and l i v e alone too. For most of the year the p o l a r bear dines on s e a l s . Keen e y e s i g h t and smell h e l p the bear i n i t s hunt. The bear i s very  good a t s n i f f i n g out (This northern Sherlock Holmes can d e t e c t ) a snow cave that i s p r o t e c t i n g baby s e a l s . When s e a l s are not a v a i l a b l e , the bear w i l l eat anything i t can f i n d such as b i r d s , b e r r i e s , g r a s s e s , eggs or even a stranded whale. P o l a r bears u s u a l l y l i v e to be f i f t e e n or twenty years o l d , and i n zoos have even l i v e d to be t h i r t y years o l d . The l i v e s of p o l a r bears, however, have been endangered more and more du r i n g recent years by b i g hunting o p e r a t i o n s and o i l s p i l l s . P o lar bears must be p r o t e c t e d by humans i f they are to s u r v i v e . L i t e r a l E q u i v a l e n t Targets - u n d e r l i n e d Metaphor Targets - u n d e r l i n e d i n parentheses 106 APPENDIX B - UNFAMILIAR TEXT There are two kinds of wombat; the common wombat and the hair y - n o s e d wombat. These wombats are 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 very 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 alone i n ( i s the Lone Ranger of) 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 has a dark brown coat which i s t h i c k and c o a r s e , and a bare black muzzle (muzzle l i k e  a dog's). In c o n t r a s t , the h a i r y - n o s e d wombat has, as i t s name shows, a muzzle covered by the s h o r t f u r of the f a c e . I t a l s o has a f i n e s i l k y coat which v a r i e s i n c o l o r from grey-black to yel l o w . T h i s wombat l i v e s i n l a r g e groups (wombat v i l l a g e s ) i n the 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 are burrowers. They are 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 ) with t h i c k set bodies, s h o r t f r o n t l e g s and powerful s h o u l d e r s . T h e i r f r o n t paws have strong curved n a i l s  ( n a i l s l i k e small s h o v e l s ) , while t h e i r back paws have s o f t pads. To d i g a burrow, the wombat s i t s on i t s rear end and hacks out the e a r t h w i t h i t s forepaws, pushing i t to one s i d e . Then the animal backs out of the tunnel k i c k i n g d i r t as i t goes. A wombats burrow i s deep, and i n some cases, l a r g e enough f o r a man to crawl i n t o . — Wombats come out of t h e i r burrows at n i g h t . They feed on  gra s s e s . (The wombats' di n n e r t a b l e i s a f i e l d of g r a s s ) . Farmers have no use f o r the animals because they sometimes t e a r l a r g e h o l e s i n fences and eat the cro p s . Wombats can o c c a s i o n a l l y be seen by day as w e l l . On warm winter days, wombats o f t e n l i e (sunbathe) near the openings to t h e i r burrows. At these times they are e a s i l y caught. In the middle of w i n t e r , a female wombat g i v e s b i r t h to one baby wombat or joey, 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 to feed on g r a s s . A wombat's pouch has two n i p p l e s , but only one baby can l i v e even when two are born. There simply i s n ' t enough room f o r two, and even with one joey, the pouch scrapes on the ground at times. The l a r g e s t wombat grows to be more than one meter long, and may weigh as much as t h i r t y - t w o kilograms (a ten year 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 has a l a r g e head, round ears and small eyes. I t looks s t u p i d and grumpy, but i t i s not. A wombat i s e a s i l y tamed, and being a long l i v e d animal, makes a good p e t . L i t e r a l E q u i v a l e n t T a r g e t s - u n d e r l i n e d Metaphor Tar g e t s - u n d e r l i n e d 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 : Write down a l l you know about Polar Bears i n the space p r o v i d e d below. Write words or phrases r a t h e r than complete sentences. The ten items i n the column on the l e f t w i l l h e l p you t h i n k of t h i n g s you know about the animal. Example: Here i s an example of what you are r e q u i r e d to do. Donkeys 1. C o l o r ; grey 2. S i z e : small horse, one and an h a l f meters long 3. Weight: don't now 4. Appearance: p o i n t e d f u r r y ears, hoofs l i k e a horse 5. ( e t c . ) POLAR BEARS 1. C o l o r : 2. S i z e : 3. Weight: 4. Appearance: 5. F a v o r i t e Foods: 6. H a b i t a t ( p l a c e where i t l i v e s ) : 7. H a b i t s (when i t s l e e p s , e a t s , has babies e t c . ) : 8. Length of L i f e : 9. Things which might endanger a p o l a r bear's l i f e : 10. Any other f a c t s t h at you know about p o l a r bears: 108 2. PART B I n s t r u c t i o n s : Write down a l l you know about Wombats i n the space pr o v i d e d below. Write words or phrases rather than complete sentences. The ten items i n the column on the l e f t w i l l help you t h i n k of t h i n g s you know about the animal. Example: Here i s an example of what you are r e q u i r e d to do. Donkeys C o l o r ; grey S i z e : s m a l l horse, one and an h a l f meters long Weight: don'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 (et c . ) WOMBATS 1. C o l o r : 2. S i z e : 3. Weight: 4. Appearance: 5. F a v o r i t e Foods: 6. Ha b i t a t (place where i t l i v e s ) : 7. H a b i t s (when i t s l e e p s , e a t s , has babies e t c . ) : 8. Length of L i f e : 9. Things which might endanger a wombat's l i f e : 10. Any other f a c t s that you know about wombats: 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 choose the phrase which best g i v e s the meaning of the u n d e r l i n e d word or words. C i r c l e the number of the answer which you choose. Example: Here i s an example of what you are r e q u i r e d to do. (1) A school i s : 1. a p l a c e where people p l a y hockey 2. a p l a c e where people l e a r n 3. a p l a c e where people worship 4. a p l a c e where people eat (a) The Lone Ranger i s : 1. a person who i s l o n e l y * 2. a person who l i v e s and t r a v e l s a c r o s s the c o u n t r y s i d e alone 3. a Ranger who i s l o n e l y 4. a person who i s a l l alone (b) A dog i s : * 1. a kind of animal 2. a kind of m i n e r a l 3. a kind of vegetable 4. a kind of person (c) A v i l l a g e i s : 1. a country house 2. a house i n the suburbs * 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 person who watches t h e i r weight * 3. a person who l i f t s weights 4. a l i f t i n g machine (e) A shovel i s : 1. a s l i d i n g movement 2. a hinged wooden panel 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 110 ( f ) A dinner t a b l e i s : 1. the f u r n i t u r e on which the e a r l i e s t meal of the day i s eaten * 2. the f u r n i t u r e on which the main meal of the day i s eaten 3. the f u r n i t u r e on which people s i t 4. the f u r n i t u r e on which people p l a y (g) To sunbathe i s : 1. to wash i n the sun * 2. to l i e o u t s t r e t c h e d i n the sun 3. to play i n the sun 4. to take a bath i n the sun (h) The weight of a ten-year o l d c h i l d i s : 1. 3 kilograms * 2. 30 kilograms 3. 300 kilogram's 4. 3,000 kilograms ( i ) A marshmallow g i a n t c o u l d be: 1. a p l a i n white woven c l o t h 2. a white s p i c y root 3. a person dressed i n white who wanders a c r o s s the e a r t h * 4. a huge f a i r y t a l e c r e a t u r e who i s dressed i n white ( j ) A shag rug i s : 1. a kind of untanned l e a t h e r 2. a cormorant b i r d * 3. a coarse c a r p e t with a long cut p i l e 4. a smooth p l u s h carpet (k) B u i l t - i n sunglasses are most l i k e l y : * 1. g l a s s e s that p r o t e c t the eyes which are " b u i l t - i n " to something 2. g l a s s e s t i n t e d to p r o t e c t the eyes 3. g l a s s e s with a " b u i l t - i n " sun 4. g l a s s e s f o r wearing i n the sun (1) Studded snow t i r e s a r e : 1 . t i r e s s c a t t e r e d over the snow 2. t i r e s which need studs f o r the snow 3. t i r e s studded with snow * 4. t i r e s with studs to pr o v i d e a g r i p on the snow (m) A l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r weighs: 1. 4 kilograms 2. 14 kilograms * 3. 400 kilograms 4. 4,000 kilograms 111 (n) A cozy animal i g l o o i s probably: 1. an i g l o o f o r cozy animals * 2. a cozy animal home made of i c e and snow 3. a cozy animal home 4. a cozy i g l o o f o r animals (o) A cocoon 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 from crushed seeds and 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 animal (p) Sherlock Holmes i s : 1. a person who i s very good at deter m i n i n g laws * 2. a person who i s very s k i l l e d at d e t e c t i n g evidence 3. a person who i s good at making d e c i s i o n s 4. a person who i s e x c e l l e n t at d e s c r i b i n g * i n d i c a t e s the c o r r e c t answer 1 1 2 APPENDIX D - TEXT BASE TEMPLATE - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC 01. there are two kinds of wombat 02. the common wombat 03. and the hairy-nosed wombat 04. these wombats are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n appearance 05. and l i v e i n very d i f f e r e n t h a b i t a t s 06. the common wombat i s the Lone Ranger 07. of the f o r e s t s 08. of Eas t e r n A u s t r a l i a 09. i t has a dark brown coat 10. which i s t h i c k 11. and coarse 12. and a muzzle 13. l i k e a dog's 14. i n c o n t r a s t 15. the hai r y - n o s e d wombat has, a muzzle 16. as i t s name shows 17. covered by the short fur of the face 18. i t a l s o has a f i n e s i l k y coat 19. which v a r i e s i n c o l o r from g r e y - b l a c k to yellow 20. t h i s wombat l i v e s i n wombat v i l l a g e s 21. i n the "outback" 22. almost t r e e l e s s 23. of South A u s t r a l i a 24. both kinds of wombat are burrowers 25. they are b u i l t l i k e w e i g h t - l i f t e r s 26. with t h i c k set bodies 27. short f r o n t l e g s 28. and powerful shoulders 29. t h e i r f r o n t paws have n a i l s 30. l i k e small shovels 31. while t h e i r back paws have s o f t pads 32. to d i g a burrow 33. the wombat s i t s on i t s rear end 34. and hacks out the earth with i t s forepaws 35. pushing i t to one side 36. then the animal backs out of the tunnel 37. k i c k i n g d i r t as i t goes 38. A wombats burrow i s deep 39. and i n some cases 40. l a r g e enough f o r a man to crawl i n t o 41. wombats come out of t h e i r burrows at night 42. the wombats' dinner t a b l e i s a f i e l d of grass 43. farmers have no use f o r the animals 44. because they sometimes tear l a r g e holes i n fences 45. and eat the crops 46. Wombats can o c c a s i o n a l l y be seen by day as w e l l 47. on warm winter days, 48. wombats o f t e n sunbathe near the openings to t h e i r burrows 49. at these times they are e a s i l y caught 50. i n the middle of winter 51. a female wombat give s b i r t h to one baby wombat 1 13 52. or joey 53. which i t c a r r i e s i n i t s pouch 54. u n t i l i t i s l a r g e enough to feed on grass 55. a wombat's pouch has two n i p p l e s 56. only one baby can l i v e 57. even when two are born 58. there simply i s n ' t enough room f o r two 59. and even with one joey 60. the pouch scrapes on the ground at times 61 . the l a r g e s t wombat grows to be more than one meter long 62. and may weigh as much as a ten-year o l d c h i l d 63. when i t i s f u l l y grown 64. A wombat a l s o has a l a r g e head 65. round ears 66. and small eyes 67. i t looks s t u p i d 68. and grumpy 69. but i t i s not 70. a wombat i s e a s i l y tamed 71 . and being a long l i v e d animal 72. makes a good pet 1 14 APPENDIX E - ORAL FREE RECALL PROTOCOL - UNFAMILIAR METAPHORIC 01 . (I) t h e r e ' s two main kinds of wombat 02. (I ) the commom wombat 03. (I) and the ha i r y - n o s e d wombat 06. (E) the h a i r y - n o s e d wombat i s the Lone Ranger 08. (I ) of E a s t e r n A u s t r a l i a 10. (I ) and has a t h i c k brown 1 1 . (I ) coarse 10. (I ) coat 12. (I ) and a muzzle 13. (T) l i k e a dog's 19. (I ) the h a i r y nosed wombat has a grey b l a c k i s h to yellow f u r 23. (I ) and i t l i v e s i n South A u s t r a l i a 24. (I ) and both wombats are burrowers 25. (T) and are b u i l t f o r burrowing 29. (E) with n a i l 30. (E) l i k e paws 27. (E) and short arms 33. (I ) they s i t on t h e i r rear ends 34. (I ) and hackk away at the d i r t 32. (I ) to burrow i n 41 . (I ) and they come out at night 00. (E) u s u a l l y 42. (T) and they feed on grass 43. (I ) farmers have no use f o r them 45. (I ) because they eat crops 44. (I ) and they t e a r away fences 50. (I ) i n the winter 51 . (I ) the female wombat give s b i r t h to one or two 57. (I ) but i f there's two 56. (I ) only one can l i v e 58. (I ) because the pouch i s only b u i l t f o r one 58. (E) or can only f i t one wombat 00. (E) so the other d i e s 53. (I ) the wombat l i v e s i n the pouch 54. (I ) u n t i l i t s b i g enough to feed on grass NUMBER OF IDEA UNITS RECALLED (I) = I n c i d e n t a l - 24 (E) = Evoked - 7 (T) = Target - 3 1 15 APPENDIX F ~ PROBED RECALL QUESTIONS F a m i l i a r Metaphoric Text (IF) 1. Where do p o l a r bears l i v e ? (F) 2. What do p o l a r bears look l i k e ? (F) 3. What p r o t e c t s p o l a r bears' eyes from the g l a r e of the i c e and snow? (IF) 4. How do p o l a r bears t r a v e l a c r o s s t h i n i c e ? (F) 5. What stops a p o l a r bear from s l i p p i n g as i t moves a c r o s s the ice ? (F) 6. How much can a p o l a r bear weigh? (IF) 7. What does a female p o l a r bear do du r i n g the summer? (I) 8. Why does the female p o l a r bear need a cozy animal i g l o o ? (F) 9. What do the cubs do when they're a l l f u r r e d out? (I) 10. Why do you think that the cubs do not leave t h e i r cocoon u n t i l t h e y're a l l f u r r e d out and weigh about s i x kilograms? (IF) 11. What does a mother p o l a r bear teach her cubs? (F) 12. How does the p o l a r bear f i n d baby s e a l s ? (I) 13. Why does the p o l a r bear need to be a northern Sherlock Holmes? (IF) 14. What w i l l a p o l a r bear eat when s e a l s are not a v a i l a b l e ? (IF) 15. How long can a p o l a r bear l i v e ? (F) = F a c t u a l Question (IF) = I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Question (I) = I n f e r e n t i a l Question 1 16 U n f a m i l i a r Metaphoric Text (IF) 1. What kind of coat does the common wombat have? (F) 2. What kind of muzzle does the common wombat have? (IF) 3. What kind of coat does the hairy-nosed wombat have? (F) 4. What does i t say i n the passage about a wombat's b u i l d ? (I) 5. Why do you thin k wombats are b u i l t l i k e weight l i f t e r s ? (F) 6. Describe a wombat's f r o n t paws. (I) 7. Why do wombats need to have n a i l s l i k e small shovels on t h e i r f r o n t paws? (IF) 8. What i s a wombat's burrow l i k e ? (F) 9. What do wombats eat? (IF) 10. Why do farmers d i s l i k e wombats? (F) 11. What do wombats o f t e n do on warm winter days? (IF) 12. Where does a wombat baby or joey l i v e u n t i l i t i s o l d enough to eat grass? (F) 13. How much does a f u l l y grown wombat weigh? (IF) 14. Why does a wombat make a good pet? (I) 15. Why do wombats o f t e n sunbathe near the openings to t h e i r burrows? (F) = F a c t u a l Question (IF) = I n c i d e n t a l F a c t u a l Question (I) = I n f e r e n t i a l Question 1 17 APPENDIX G - MULTIPLE-CHOICE METAPHOR PROBE F a m i l i a r Text I n s t r u c t i o n s : Please read each sentence c a r e f u l l y , and t h i n k about the meaning of the u n d e r l i n e d words. You are to choose from the phrases given below, the one which you th i n k best g i v e s the meaning of the u n d e r l i n e d words. Example: Here i s an example of what you are r e q u i r e d to do. (a) The new boy i n our c l a s s i s b u i l t l i k e a tank. 1. s h o r t and brave * 2. s h o r t and very strong 3. t a l l and brave 4. t a l l and f u l l of courage (a) When f u l l y grown, t h i s marshmallow g i a n t stands one to one and a h a l f meters h i g h at the s h o u l d e r s , and i s about two and a h a l f meters l o n g from nose to t a i l . 1 . p owerful marshmallow animal 2. legendary white animal * 3. l a r g e w h i t e - f u r r e d animal 4. l a r g e marshmallow animal (.b) P o l a r b ears' white shag rugs make them d i f f i c u l t to see a g a i n s t the i c e and snow, and keep them warm i n the sub-zero temperatures. * 1. f u r c o a t s 2. c o a r s e mats 3. p l u s h rugs 4. smooth co a t s (c) B u i l t - i n s u n g l a s s e s over t h e i r small black eyes p r o t e c t s them from the g l a r e of the i c e and snow. 1. t i n t e d g l a s s covers 2. g l a s s e s f o r wearing i n the sun * 3. an e x t r a membrane 4. s u n g l a s s e s b u i l t - i n t o t h e i r s k i n (d) Large paws wit h f u r between the pads give p o l a r bears a g r i p  l i k e studded snow t i r e s . 1. rubber g r i p 2. round studded g r i p ; 3. s l i p p e r y g r i p * 4. n o n - s l i p g r i p 1 18 (e) P o l a r bears' legs can spread wide apart when they walk so that a l t h o u g h they may weigh as much as a l a r g e r e f r i g e r a t o r , they can t r a v e l a c r o s s i c e too t h i n to h o l d up a man. * 1 . 400 kilograms 2. 40 kilograms 3. 14 kilograms 4. 4 kilograms (f ) In the F a l l , the female p o l a r bear d i g s a cozy animal i g l o o 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 winter bed 4. an i g l o o (g) By l a t e March, the cubs are a l l f u r r e d out, and weigh about s i x kilograms each. Yhey are then ready to leave t h e i r  s h e l t e r e d cocoon. 1. to leave t h e i r mother * 2. to leave t h e i r den 3. to leave the other cub 4. to leave t h e i r c o v e r i n g (h) T h i s northern Sherlock Holmes can d e t e c t a snow cave that i s p r o t e c t i n g baby s e a l s . 1. the bear u s u a l l y s n i f f s out 2. the bear sometimes s n i f f s out * 3. the bear i s very good at s n i f f i n g out 4. the bear can not s n i f f out * i n d i c a t e s the c o r r e c t answer 119 U n f a m i l i a r Text I n s t r u c t i o n s : Please read each sentence c a r e f u l l y , and th i n k about the meaning of the u n d e r l i n e d words. You are to choose from the phrases given below, the one which you t h i n k best g i v e s the meaning of the u n d e r l i n e d words. Example: Here i s an example of what you are r e q u i r e d to do. (a) The new boy i n our c l a s s i s b u i l t l i k e a tank. 1. short and brave * 2. short and very s t r o n g 3. t a l l and brave 4. t a l l and f u l l of courage (a) The common wombat i s the Lone Ranger of the f o r e s t s of Ea s t e r n A u s t r a l i a , temperatures. * 1 . l i v e s alone i n 2. i s l o n e l y i n 3. i s a l o n e l y Ranger i n 4. i s a Ranger i n (b) The common wombat has a dark brown coat which i s t h i c k and co a r s e , and a muzzle l i k e a dog's. 1. a f u r r y pink muzzle 2. a f u r r y muzzle * 3. a bare black muzzle 4. a bare pink muzzle (c) The hai r y - n o s e d wombat l i v e s i n wombat v i l l a g e s i n the 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 are 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, sho r t f r o n t l e g s and powerful s h o u l d e r s . 1. t h i c k l y b u i l t * 2. s t r o n g l y b u i l t 3. b u i l t to l i f t heavy weights 4. b u i l t to l i f t 120 (e) Wombats' f r o n t paws have n a i l s l i k e small s h o v e l s , while t h e i r back paws have s o f t pads. 1. s i i d i n g n a i I s 2. s m a l l bent n a i l s 3. long n a i l s * 4. str o n g curved n a i l s ( f ) The wombats' dinner t a b l e i s a f i e l d of gra s s . 1. wombats eat grass at a t a b l e 2. wombats feed on grass at the dinner t a b l e * 3. wombats feed on grasses 4. a wombat's t a b l e i s made of grass (g) On warm winter days, wombats o f t e n sunbathe near the openings to t h e i r burrows. * 1. o f t e n l i e o u t s t r e t c h e d i n the sun 2. o f t e n wash i n the sun 3. o f t e n p l a y i n the sun 4. o f t e n take a bath i n the sun (h) The l a r g e s t wombat grows to be more than one meter long, and may weigh as much as a ten year o l d c h i l d when i t i s f u l l y grown. 1. 3 kilograms * 2. 32 kilograms 3. 302 kilograms 4. 3,002 kilograms * i n d i c a t e s the c o r r e c t answer 121 APPENDIX H - DEBRIEFING INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (1) D i d you f i n d t h i s passage i n t e r e s t i n g to read? E x p l a i n . (2) Was t h i s passage easy or d i f f i c u l t to read? Can you t e l l me why? Explain.. (3) Was t h i s passage easy or d i f f i c u l t f o r you to understand? E x p l a i n . (4) How much do you f e e l you know about the t o p i c of t h i s passage; that i s , before you read the passage and and a f t e r you read the passage? 1 22 APPENDIX I - TABLES Table III - ANOVA f o r O r a l Free R e c a l l Measures Table IV - ANOVA f o r : Probed R e c a l l Measures Table V - MANOVA f o r I n c i d e n t a l O r a l Free R e c a l l Table VI - MANOVA f o r Evoked O r a l Free R e c a l l Table VII - MANOVA f o r Target O r a l Free R e c a l l Table VIII - MANOVA f o r F a c t u a l Probed R e c a l l Table IX - MANOVA 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 Table X - MANOVA f o r I n f e r e n t i a l Probed R e c a l l Table III AKOVA for Oral Free Recall Measures Source df Mean Square F Tail Prob (A) VERSION 1 0.14737 1. 07 0.3072 COVARIATE 1 1.8372 8. 58 0.0054* ERROR 43 0.13799 (B) TOPIC 1 0.01459 0. 18 0.6748 B X A 1 0.52671 6. 44 0.0148* ERROR 44 0.08179 (C) MEASURES 2 11.66586 137. 21 0.0000* C X A 2 0.01397 0. 16 0.8488 ERROR 88 0.08502 B X C 2 0.01353 0. 17 0.8466 B X C X A 2 0.70347 8. 67 0.0004* ERROR 88 0.08112 * p<.05 Table IV ANOVA for Probed Recall Measures Source df Mean F Tail Square Prob (A) VERSI.OK 1 0.80185 0.98 0.3280 COVARIATE 1 9.67118 11.81 0.0013* ERROR 43 0.81905 (B) TOPIC 1 5.11387 10.19 0.0026* B X A 1 1.63440 3.26 0.0780 ERROR 44 0.50190 (C) MEASURES 2 5.61566 18.20 0.0000* C X A 2 0.30257 0.98 0.3791 ERROR 88 0.30849 B X C 2 1.80439 5.04 0.0084* B X C X A 2 0.85389 2.39 0.0979 ERROR 88 C35785 * p<.05 Table V MA K OVA for Incidental Oral Free Recall Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .02366 -.91430 .363 (B) Topic .02365 .87143 .386 A X B .02365 1 .17662 .243 Table VI MANOVA for Evoked Oral Free Recall Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .02029 -.64252 .522 (B) Topic .02028 -.15275 .879 A X B .02028 -.87311 .385 Table VII MAKCVA for Target Oral Free Recall Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .04443 -.78075 .437 (B) Topic .04440 .09694 .923 A X B .04440 -3.17930 .002 * * P .05 Table VIII MANOVA for Factual Probed Recall Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .05674 .17502 .861 (B) Topic .05671 .17117 .864 A X B .05671 -.57985 .564 Table IX MANOVA for Incidental Factual Probed Recall Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .05470 -1.28621 .202 (B) Topic .05467 2.04847 .044* A X B .05467 2.13237 .036* * p<.05 Table X MANOVA for Inferential Probed Recall : Source Std. Err. T-Value Sig. of T (A) Version .09086 -1.11557 .268 (B) Topic .09081 3.15664 .002* A X B .09081 1.62051 .109 * p<.05 

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