↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Adjective Metaphors Evoke Negative Meanings

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Adjective Metaphors Evoke Negative Meanings
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0089008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maki Sakamoto, Akira Utsumi

Abstract

Previous metaphor studies have paid much attention to nominal metaphors and predicative metaphors, but little attention has been given to adjective metaphors. Although some studies have focused on adjective metaphors, they only examined differences in the acceptability of various types of adjective metaphors. This paper explores the cognitive effects evoked by adjective metaphors. Three psychological experiments revealed that (1) adjective metaphors, especially those modified by color adjectives, tend to evoke negative effect; (2) although the meanings of metaphors are basically affected by the meanings of their vehicles, when a vehicle has a neutral meaning, negative meanings are evoked most frequently for adjective metaphors compared to nominal and predicative metaphors; (3) negative meanings evoked by adjective metaphors are related to poeticness, and poetic metaphors evoke negative meanings more easily than less poetic metaphors. Our research sheds new light on studies of the use of metaphor, which is one of the most basic human cognitive abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 28%
Linguistics 8 20%
Computer Science 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%