Skip to main content
Log in

Comprehension and memory of the literal and figurative meaning of proverbs

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proverbs were used to examine recognition memory for four types of sentence information (figurative meaning, literal meaning, lexical information, syntactic information) with two levels of comprehension. Forced-choice recognition tasks showed that subjects were successful in remembering all four types of information. Recognition scores for the figurative meaning of unfamiliar proverbs presented in isolation were above chance and were also significantly improved when procedures were employed which encouraged comprehension of this level of meaning. The results are most consistent with theories of comprehension which provide for different types of processing for figurative and literal language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1974). Verbatim and propositional representation of sentences in immediate and long-term memory.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 13:149–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., and Bower, G. H. (1973).Human Associative Memory, Winston, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., and Paulson, R. (1977). Representation and retention of verbatim information.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16:439–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I. (1971) Recognition memory for sentence meaning and wording.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 19:176–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow, D. G., and Norman, D. A. (1975) Some principles of memory schemata. In Bobrow, D. G., and Norman, D. A. (eds.),Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., and Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In Cermak, L. S., and Craik, F. I. M. (eds.),Levels of Processing and Human Memory, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1908). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge. III. Über Gedankenerinnerungen.Arch. Gesamte Psychol. 12:93–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1951). [On thought connections.] In Rapaport, D. (ed. and trans.),Organization and Pathology of Thought: Selected Sources, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 12:335–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., and Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 14:56–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., and Quillian, M. R. (1972). How to make a language use. In Tulving, E., and Donaldson, W. (eds.),Organization of Memory, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, H. (1946).A World Treasury of Proverbs, Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., and Morgan, J. L. (eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3:Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J. Comprehension of metaphors: A test of the two-stage processing model.Bull. Psychon. Soc. 8:321–324.

  • Harrower, M. R. (1933). Organization in higher mental processes.Psychol. Forsch. 17:56–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Roth, B., and Hayes-Roth, F. (1977). The prominence of lexical information in memory representations of meaning.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16:119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honeck, R. P. Interpretive versus structural effects on semantic memory.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 12:448–455.

  • Honeck, R. P., Riechmann, P., and Hoffman, R. R. (1975). Semantic memory for metaphor: The conceptual base hypothesis.Memory Cogn. 3:409–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honeck, R. P., Sowry, B. M., and Voegtle, K. (1978). Proverbial understanding in a pictorial context.Child Dev. 49:327–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Stevenson, R. (1970). Memory for syntax.Nature 227:412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. J., and Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory.Language 39:170–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1972). Notes on the structure of semantic memory. In Tulving, E., and Donaldson, W. (eds.),Organization of Memory, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1974)The Representation of Meaning in Memory, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolers, P. A., and Ostry, D. J. (1974). Time course of loss of information regarding pattern analyzing operations.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 13:599–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. J. (1971). Concerning a “linguistic theory” of metaphor.Found. Lang. 7:413–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., and Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16:519–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony, A. Beyond literal similarity. In Ortony, A. (ed.),Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press).

  • Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., and Arter, J. A. (1978a). Metaphor: Theoretical and empirical research.Psychol. Bull. 85:919–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., and Antos, S. J. (1978b). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 17:465–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., and Garson, B. (1973). Forgetting linguistic information after reading.J. Educ. Psychol. 65:135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrine, L. (1971). Four forms of metaphor.College Eng. 33:125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullar-Strecker, H. (1954).Proverbs for Pleasure, Christopher Johnson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, I. A. (1965).The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.Percept. Psychophys. 2:437–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. S. (1974). Memory in reading and listening to discourse.Memory Cogn. 2:95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trembath, A. A. (1972). Comparison of sensitivity to the surface and deep structure of sentences in children.Lang. Speech 15:51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbrugge, R. (1977). Resemblances in language and perception. In Shaw, R., and Bransford, J. (eds.),Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbrugge, R. R., and McCarrell, N. S. (1977). Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling.Cogn. Psychol. 9:494–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinreich, U. (1966). Explorations in semantic theory. In Sebeok, T. A., (ed.),Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 3:Theoretical Foundations, Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kathryn Bock, J., Brewer, W.F. Comprehension and memory of the literal and figurative meaning of proverbs. J Psycholinguist Res 9, 59–72 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067302

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067302

Keywords

Navigation