DOCSLIB.ORG

Linguistic and Cognitive Features of Figurative Language Processing and Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Linguistic and Cognitive Features of Figurative Language Processing and Production Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Department of Applied Linguistics and English Language Dissertations as a Second Language 4-30-2018 Beyond Literal Meaning: Linguistic And Cognitive Features Of Figurative Language Processing And Production STEPHEN SKALICKY Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss Recommended Citation SKALICKY, STEPHEN, "Beyond Literal Meaning: Linguistic And Cognitive Features Of Figurative Language Processing And Production." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/44 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY Under the Direction of Scott Crossley, PhD ABSTRACT Figurative language, such as metaphor and irony, has been studied by researchers in a wide variety of fields for the past several decades. A primary goal of this research has been to determine the processes underlying figurative language comprehension (e.g., how the figurative meaning of a metaphor is processed when compared to its literal meaning). While this research has led to a better understanding of the relation between figurative meaning and surface linguistic form, it has also served to underemphasize other potentially important influences on figurative language use, such as participant individual differences (e.g., cognitive ability, language background), linguistic features (e.g., lexical sophistication), and affective perceptions (e.g., humorous reactions). The purpose of this dissertation was to analyze figurative language use from a dynamic perspective taking into account a multitude of potential influences on the production, processing, and perception of figurative language through three separate studies. In the first two studies, 61 human participants were recruited to complete a metaphor and sarcasm production experiment as well as a satire processing and comprehension experiment. Individual differences measures (e.g., language background, working memory capacity) were collected, and the metaphors, sarcastic responses, and satirical texts were analyzed for linguistic features related to lexical sophistication and semantic cohesion. Results revealed that a number of individual differences and linguistic features were significant predictors of figurative language production ability, but also that these features interacted with contextual variables (e.g., the metaphor or sarcasm prompts) in a dynamic manner, making it difficult to identify consistent influences on figurative language production ability. Moreover, satire comprehension ability was significantly influenced by affective perceptions of sincerity, positivity, and humor, as well as by relative English age of onset, but not by processing time, suggesting that comprehension of satirical meaning is heavily dependent upon pragmatic inference. In the third study, 423 online workers completed an online creative production task, the results of which suggested that the presence of figurative language significantly increased perceptions of creativity, highlighting further connections between creativity and figurative language. Overall, these results demonstrate the importance of adopting a dynamic approach towards understanding figurative language use. INDEX WORDS: Satire, Sarcasm, Metaphor, Creativity, Individual differences, Psycholinguistics, Cognitive linguistics BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2018 Copyright by Stephen Cameron Skalicky 2018 BEYOND LITERAL MEANING: LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE FEATURES OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION by STEPHEN SKALICKY Committee Chair: Scott Crossley Committee: Nancy Bell Eric Friginal YouJin Kim Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University May 2018 iv DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my very understanding wife, Yeti Skalicky, who has supported me without question during every stage of this process. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the result of both my own efforts as well as many others who have supported me during my entire graduate career. Among the many people who have helped me, Nancy Bell was the first professor to actually treat me like a graduate student, and whose patience and enthusiasm led me through my master’s degree and towards my PhD. Without her I simply would not be where I am today, and I am extremely thrilled that I am able to continue working with her and that she is a member of my PhD committee. I thank Eric Friginal for the numerous opportunities he has provided for me, and for the fantastic time I had as part of the global TESOL program in Guangzhou. Eric is masterful when it comes to locating resources, publication outlets, and other opportunities for students, and truly cares about ensuring success for all of the graduate students in the Department of Applied Linguistics, and I feel extremely grateful to have worked with him. I also want to thank YouJin Kim, who has been an ally since my very first visit to Georgia State, even before I entered the program. Working for YouJin as a research assistant taught me a great deal about research methodology, second language acquisition, and even what a stranded preposition is. YouJin may work behind the scenes to look out for mine (and others) well being, but she should know that all of her effort is deeply appreciated. I am also indebted to several other members of the Department of Applied Linguistics. I thank Ute Römer for helping me learn Sinclarian corpus linguistic methods and applying them to a topic of my own interest. I thank Viviana Cortes for teaching me that it is perfectly fine for me to teach writing the way I want to teach it. I thank Stephanie Lindemann for her good humor and Diane Belcher for reminding me about the qualitative side of research. vi And, of course, I must provide big thanks to my advisor, Scott Crossley, for his mentorship and other assistance during my time in the PhD program. Although I did not envision working with Scott when I entered the program, I am extremely glad that I did. This is because Scott pushed me to become a true researcher, one who is not afraid to learn new things and instead welcomes the idea that there is always something new to learn. Scott has provided me with an uncountable amount of opportunities that have helped me develop a wide skill set and created memories that I will carry with me forever. Finally, to all of my friends at Georgia State, including Dave Chiesa, Cindy Berger, Kris Kyle, Rurik Tywoniw, Sarah Goodwin, and others, I thank you for being there and am truly happy that I was able to get to know you all. Working through a PhD is one of the loneliest processes I have endured, but it was made all the more better when surrounded by good friends. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ V LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... XV LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... XVII 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Current Study ..................................................................................................... 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 13 2.1 Types of Figurative Language ........................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Metaphor and Simile. ................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Verbal Irony and Sarcasm. .......................................................................... 16 2.1.3 Satire. ............................................................................................................ 19 2.2 Figurative Language Research ......................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Metaphor processing. ................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Verbal irony processing. ............................................................................... 22 2.2.3 Satire processing. .......................................................................................... 26 2.3 Variables Beyond Literal and Figurative Meaning ........................................ 27 2.4 Individual Differences and Figurative Language ............................................ 28 2.5 Cognitive Measures ............................................................................................ 28 2.5.1 Intelligence. ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waking up from «Conjecture» As Well As from «Dream»
    DOSSIER WAKING UP FROM «CONJECTURE» AS WELL AS FROM «DREAM» A presentation of AIME Text: Bruno Latour GAD Distinguished Lecture, American Anthropology Association meeting, Chicago 21st of November 2013 1 Abstract As every ethnographer knows, in addition to the many blunders every one of us commits in the course of our feldwork, there exist also graver mistakes when we sense a mistaken regime of reality granted to an entity. It is at those moments, usually the most revealing in the course of our inquiries, when we try to repair broken relations by some innovative move to defne the status of the contrasting realities that have been open to misinterpretation. During the last quarter century I have attempted, quite systematically, to increase the number of templates by which the so-called Moderns account for themselves; not, to be sure, in their ofcial representation (they remain staunch adepts of the Object-Subject Operating System and will swear that they are obedient naturalists), but by looking for the many occasions where they express dissatisfaction with such an ofcial view of themselves. What I think I have documented are the protestations by many diferent people that a skewed template is being used to account for the mode of existence of the agencies that are most attached to them. Keywords: method; ontology; modernism; inquiry; physical anthropology; diplomacy «Thus there would be two natures, (the world is made of objects and subjects, period) with the one is the conJecture bewildering number of entities they have never ceased to and the other is the dream» encounter or to generate along their path.
    [Show full text]
  • Mastering the Metaphor
    Mastering the Metaphor ACBS World Conference IX Colleen Ehrnstrom, Ph.D. Boulder, Colorado, USA www.actskillsgroup.com Many thanks to Chad Emrick and Carl Baccellieri and the Boulder ACT consultation group for their advice and feedback regarding this workshop. We utter about one metaphor for every 10 to 25 words, or about six metaphors a minute (Geary, 2011). Metaphors are represented in this presentation in both written and visual form. Metaphor: Picture is worth a 1000 words (embedded in computer metaphor) 1. Learn where metaphors fit into the infrastructure of the ACT model 2. Understand the basic science of metaphors 3. Know and apply the guidelines for using metaphors in therapy 4. Watch therapists use metaphors in the therapeutic context 5. Practice using some ACT metaphors in the therapeutic context Mechanistic versus Contextual Metaphor: Bank of a stream– Where does the bank end and the water begin? Functional Contextualism – given the context, what is the function? Metaphor: Google maps v floorplan – do you want to drive there or live there? Suffering is related to language Metaphor: Your words slice through me like knives RFT is the science behind ACT Metaphor: Driving a car without knowing the mechanics of it Pliance (“plys”) – compliance with verbal rules that are socially supported. Plys are typically our first introduction to rules. Examples: Eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables to stay healthy Wear a coat – it is cold outside Metaphor: Go the extra mile What are your plys about doing ACT in the therapy room?? Plys are more prevalent because they do not require direct experience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Metaphor in Poetry
    THE USE OF METAPHOR IN POETRY structure 3.0 - Aims and Objectives 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Traditional definition of metaphor 3.3 Distinction between simile and metaphor 3.3.1 Changein the trditidndunof metaphor 3.3.2 Difference between traditional and modern uses of metaphor 3.4 Simile and metaphor in a chain 3.4.1 Comptex metaphors 3.4.2 Symbd and conceit 3.5 Varieties of metaphor 3.5.1 Contemporary concept ofmetaphor 3.5.2 USe of me!apbor in modern poetry 3.6 imageas metaphor 3.7 Analogical and contextual notions of metaphor 3.8 Summing up 3.9 Activities: aids to answers 3.10 Glossary 3.0 AIMS ANI) OBJECTIVES This Unit discusses the use of metaphor in poetry. After going through it, you wiU learn that metaphor, like simite, is based on comparison between two dissimjlar the; the language we use being metaphoric in origin, some of our expressions have lost their original metaphoric character and have become dead metaphors; the traditional definition of metaphor as shortened simile has become modified in that metaphors.are not &&ed tidm simple logical comparisons; 0 dilethe traditional use ofwetaphor is for bringing out the points of similarity between two things, the mderh use of it is to make it serve as a ceqtral concept of the poem; in many poems the simik and the metaphor are indeed combined as in a chain. This suggests that though a siml is at the root of every metaphor, it is metaphor that - makes the poem vivid and symbolical; if the suggestecf-resemblane of the things compared is far-fetched or arbitrary, the metaphor acquires the character of a symbol or a conceit; * poets no longer consider a wtaphor as a distinct rhetorical element but associate it with other stylistic elements as 'metaphors'; * metaphor has become a condition of poetry and a means for the evocathn of connota~imand assoeiationscentral to the poem; in mdmpoetry,metaphar implies a transaction between contexts and kelps the overt meanings of images toacquire metaphoric significance; and .
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded for Free
    Salem State University From the SelectedWorks of Sovicheth Boun March 24, 2014 A Critical Examination Of Language Ideologies And Identities Of Cambodian Foreign-Trained University Lecturers Of English Sovicheth Boun Available at: https://works.bepress.com/sovicheth-boun/2/ Table of Contents General Conference Information ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-­‐13 Welcome Messages from the President and the Conference Chair ........................................................................................................................ 3 Conference Program Committee .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Registration Information, Exhibit Hall Coffee Hours, Breaks, Internet Access, Conference Evaluation ................................................ 4 Strand Coordinators and Abstract Readers .................................................................................................................................................................. 5-­‐6 Student Volunteers, Individual Sessions and Roundtable Sessions Instructions ............................................................................................ 7 Conference Sponsors .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Language Education & Assessment the Effect of Cohesive Features In
    OPEN ACCESS Language Education & Assessment ISSN 2209-3591 https://journals.castledown-publishers.com/lea/ Language Education & Assessment, 2 (3), 110-134 (2019) https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n3.152 The Effect of Cohesive Features in Integrated and Independent L2 Writing Quality and Text Classification RURIK TYWONIW a SCOTT CROSSLEY b a Georgia State University, USA b Georgia State University, USA EmAil: [email protected] EmAil: [email protected] Abstract Cohesion feAtures were cAlculAted for A corpus of 960 essAys by 480 test-tAkers from the Test of English As A Foreign LAnguage (TOEFL) in order to examine differences in the use of cohesion devices between integrated (source-based) writing And independent writing sAmples. Cohesion indices were meAsured using An AutomAted textual Analysis tool, the Tool for the AutomAtic Assessment of Cohesion (TAACO). A discriminant function Analysis correctly clAssified essAys As either integrated or independent in 92.3 per cent of cAses. Integrated writing wAs mArked by higher use of specific connectives And greAter lexicAl overlAp of content words between textual units, whereAs independent writing wAs mArked by greAter lexicAl overlAp of function words, especiAlly pronouns. Regression Analyses found that cohesive indices which distinguish tAsks predict writing quality judgments more strongly in independent writing. However, the strongest predictor of humAn judgments wAs the sAme for both tAsks: lexicAl overlAp of function words. The findings demonstrate that text cohesion is A multidimensional construct shaped by the writing tAsk, yet the meAsures of cohesion which Affect humAn judgments of writing quality Are not entirely different Across tAsks. These Analyses Allow us to better understAnd cohesive feAtures in writing tAsks And implicAtions for AutomAted writing Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetorical Model for Homiletics. Rodney Kennedy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1990 The piE stemic Power of Metaphor: A Rhetorical Model for Homiletics. Rodney Kennedy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Kennedy, Rodney, "The pE istemic Power of Metaphor: A Rhetorical Model for Homiletics." (1990). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5063. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5063 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Workers in the Vineyard
    Workers in the Vineyard This parable (Mt 20:1-16) is about several workers who are hired by a land owner, over different periods of time. In the evening, the workers who are hired first expect to be paid more than those hired later. But the owner pays all of the workers equally. Land Owner: Most of the productive land was held by large-scale elite owners. From the First Temple period through the Second, a pronounced shift in the patterns of land tenure took place, shifting from smallholders producing the Mediterranean triad of grain, grapes and olives for subsistence to large estates orientated to large-scale production and export crops. The owner in this parable is one of the wealthy sub-elites who owned large estates and converted the land to viticulture dedicated to the production of export crops. Laborers: The social order consisted of a patron-and-client society of unequal relationships with the estate owners assuming the role of patrons and those who have lost the land becoming their clients. In such a relationship the client’s wellbeing is determined by the closeness of rapport he maintains with the patron. The landless laborers in the parable did not belong to the ambit of such a relationship. They were outside of any assured protection and regular work opportunity and, hence, more vulnerable to be deprived of their basic wages even on rare occasions when they found a work to do. Early workers: The working hours of the Israelites were 12 and was counted from 6:00 A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity, Pages 1–11, Osaka, Japan, December 11-17 2016
    CL4LC 2016 Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity Proceedings of the Workshop December 11, 2016 Osaka, Japan Copyright of each paper stays with the respective authors (or their employers). ISBN 978-4-87974-709-9 ii Preface Welcome to the first edition of the “Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity” workshop (CL4LC)! CL4LC aims at investigating “processing” aspects of linguistic complexity with the objective of promoting a common reflection on approaches for the detection, evaluation and modelling of linguistic complexity. What has motivated such a focus on linguistic complexity? Although the topic of linguistic complexity has attracted researchers for quite some time, this concept is still poorly defined and often used with different meanings. Linguistic complexity indeed is inherently a multidimensional concept that must be approached from various perspectives, ranging from natural language processing (NLP), second language acquisition (SLA), psycholinguistics and cognitive science, as well as contrastive linguistics. In 2015, a one-day workshop dedicated to the question of Measuring Linguistic Complexity was organized at the catholic University of Louvain (UCL) with the aim of identifying convergent approaches in diverse fields addressing linguistic complexity from their specific viewpoint. Not only did the workshop turn out to be a great success, but it strikingly pointed out that more in–depth thought is required in order to investigate how research on linguistic complexity and its processing aspects could actually benefit from the sharing of definitions, methodologies and techniques developed from different perspectives. CL4LC stems from these reflections and would like to go a step further towards a more multifaceted view of linguistic complexity. In particular, the workshop would like to investigate processing aspects of linguistic complexity both from a machine point of view and from the perspective of the human subject in order to pinpoint possible differences and commonalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Novel Metaphor Using Selectional Preference Information
    Detecting novel metaphor using selectional preference information Hessel Haagsma and Johannes Bjerva University of Groningen The Netherlands Abstract costs an arm and a leg.’ and the Dutch ‘Dit lesboek kost een rib uit het lijf.’ (lit. ‘This textbook costs a Recent work on metaphor processing often rib from the body.’) to be mapped to the same mean- employs selectional preference information. ing representation, which should not include refer- We present a comparison of different ap- ences to any of the body parts used in the idiomatic proaches to the modelling of selectional pref- erences, based on various ways of generaliz- expressions. ing over corpus frequencies. We evaluate on In this paper, we focus on one area of figurative the VU Amsterdam Metaphor corpus, a broad language processing, namely the detection of novel corpus of metaphor. We find that using only metaphor, and especially the utility of selectional selectional preference information is enough preference features for this task. By doing this, we to outperform an all-metaphor baseline clas- hope to answer a two-fold question: can selectional sification, but that generalization through pre- preference information be used to successfully de- diction or clustering is not beneficial. A pos- tect novel metaphor? And how do generalization sible explanation for this lies in the nature of the evaluation data, and lack of power of se- methods influence the effectiveness of selectional lectional preference information on its own preference information? for non-novel metaphor detection. To bet- ter investigate the role of metaphor type in 2 Background metaphor detection, we suggest a resource with annotation of novel metaphor should be 2.1 Types of metaphor in language created.
    [Show full text]
  • Ockham's Razor, Truth, and Information
    Ockham's Razor, Truth, and Information Kevin T. Kelly Department of Philosophy Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] March 11, 2008 Abstract In science, one faces the problem of selecting the true theory from a range of al- ternative theories. The typical response is to select the simplest theory compatible with available evidence, on the authority of \Ockham's Razor". But how can a ¯xed bias toward simplicity help one ¯nd possibly complex truths? A short survey of standard answers to this question reveals them to be either wishful, circular, or irrelevant. A new explanation is presented, based on minimizing the reversals of opinion prior to convergence to the truth. According to this alternative approach, Ockham's razor does not inform one which theory is true but is, nonetheless, the uniquely most e±cient strategy for arriving at the true theory, where e±ciency is a matter of minimizing reversals of opinion prior to ¯nding the true theory. 1 Introduction Suppose that several or even in¯nitely many theories are compatible with the infor- mation available. How ought one to choose among them, if at all? The traditional and intuitive answer is to choose the \simplest" and to cite Ockham's razor by way of justi¯cation. Simplicity, in turn, has something to do with minimization of entities, de- scription length, causes, free parameters, independent principlies, or ad hoc hypotheses, or maximization of unity, uniformity, symmetry, testability, or explanatory power. Insofar as Ockham's razor is widely regarded as a rule of scienti¯c inference, it should help one to select the true theory from among the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative and Metaphor As Conceptual Tools for Understanding Evolution Theory
    Narrative and Metaphor as Conceptual Tools for Understanding Evolution Theory Paper for the Proceedings of the International Conference „Innovazione nella didattica delle scienze nella scuola primaria e dell’infanzia’ 21-22 Novembre 2014 Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia. Jörg Zabel Institute for Biology Biology Education Johannisallee 21-23 04103 Leipzig, Germany e-mail: [email protected] phone: +49 (0) 341 97-36641 fax: +49 (0) 341 97-36899 http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~biodidak/ Abstract Human beings ‘make sense of the world by telling stories about it’ (Bruner 1996, p.130). Thus, meaningful narrative explanations cannot simply be replaced by scientific conceptions that are contradictory to the learner's experimental realism (Gropengiesser 2003). This is specifically relevant in those domains of science where conceptual change in favour of scientific explanations is difficult to achieve, e.g. the theory of evolution. Learners tend to make sense of the phenomena in their own, non-scientific way that includes intentional and teleological explanations. This paper focuses on the role of a so-called ‘narrative mode of thought’ (Bruner 1996) for meaning making in the science classroom. We present results from a study in lower secondary school (age 12-13 ys.), exploring how students make sense of adaptation phenomena. Before and after a teaching sequence on the theory of evolution, students explained the evolution of modern whales from their terrestrial ancestors by writing narrative or non-narrative texts on the issue. Text analysis, combined with student interviews, revealed students' conceptions and their individual methods of making sense of adaptation phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GOOD SAMARITAN AS METAPHOR Robert W
    THE GOOD SAMARITAN AS METAPHOR Robert W. Funk University of Montana ABSTRACT The parable of the Good Samaritan is commonly under­ stood as an example story, offering an example of what it means to be a good neighbor. But the parable does not invite the hearer to view it as an example of what it means to be a good neighbor. Rather, it invites the auditor to be the victim in the ditch, as a careful reading indicates. The "meaning" of the parable is the way auditors take up rôles in the story and play out the drama. As a drama into which the hearers are drawn, the parable suggests that in the Kingdom mercy is always a surprise. 0. Literary and biblical critics have always deemed it an important matter to determine the kind of language being used in any text to be interpreted. In some cases it is crucial. For example, the argument over whether the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable or an example story can be settled only in conjunction with determining the nature of the language. The view advocated here is that the Good Samaritan is metaphorical and there­ fore not an example story (cf. Funk: 199-222). This understanding runs counter to both the ancient and the modern traditions of interpretation. Dominic Crossan has joined the battle on the side of metaphor, while Dan Via has supported the older view with structuralist arguments (Semeia 1, 1974). The Good Samaritan is a particularly interest­ ing case because the story is felt to be a powerful symbol in the Jesus tradition and yet it is taken literally by most interpreters.
    [Show full text]