Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Literary Semantics

An International Review

Founded by Eaton, Trevor

Ed. by Toolan, Michael

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.38

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.122
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.575

Online
ISSN
1613-3838
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 36, Issue 1

Issues

Shall I compare thee? Simile understanding and semantic categories

David Fishelov
Published Online: 2007-04-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JLS.2007.004

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a few research findings on the process of understanding simile, where special attention was given to the semantic relationship between its three major components: Tenor (hereafter T), Vehicle (hereafter V) and Predicate (hereafter P). By manipulating different degrees of conventionality among these three components and the explicit presence of a P, eight kinds of simile emerged (e.g. conventional T and V but with unconventional P). Questionnaires were formulated consisting of lists of sixteen similes, representing the eight kinds. Subjects were asked to provide a short interpretation of the given similes, to estimate whether the simile conveyed negative, positive or neutral connotations, and finally to grade the degree of difficulty they encountered in understanding it. Thus, for example, most subjects reported that (1) “John is like a snake” says that John is a cunning and dangerous person, that it conveys negative connotations and that they had no difficulty in understanding it. Other, more “difficult” similes got diversified answers. Thus, for example, some subjects claimed that they had difficulty in understanding a phrase like (2) “John is like the state of Israel,” and responses concerning its connotations and its specific meanings were more heterogeneous. One conclusion based on the results is that subjects tend to cling to existing semantic categories not only in understanding conventional similes (and, by implication, metaphors and symbols), but also when faced with highly novel ones.

About the article

Published Online: 2007-04-25

Published in Print: 2007-04-19


Citation Information: Journal of Literary Semantics, Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 71–87, ISSN (Online) 1613-3838, ISSN (Print) 0341-7638, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JLS.2007.004.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Lei Zhu
Language & History, 2017, Volume 60, Number 1, Page 35
[2]
Peter Stockwell
Language and Literature, 2008, Volume 17, Number 4, Page 351

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in