INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer. 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 copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. 1 Accessing theUMI World’s Information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA Order Number 8824597 The role of metaphor in comprehension processes Robertson, Carolyn Seils, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1988 Copyright ©1988 by Robertson, Carolyn Seils. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a checkV . mark 1. Glossy photographs or _____pages 2. Colored illustrations, paper or______ print 3. Photographs with dark background , 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original______ copy 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides_______ of p ag e 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several^ pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost_______ in spine 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct______ print 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 193 12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received_________ 16. Other______________________________________________________________________ UMI THE ROLE OF METAPHOR IN COMPREHENSION PROCESSES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Carolyn Seils Robertson, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1988 Dissertation Committee Approved by V. Rentel J. Green F. Zidonis Copyright by Carolyn Seils Robertson 1988 To Mike, Annie, and Mark ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express sincere appreciation to Dr. Victor M. Rentel for his thoughtful guidance throughout the process of conceptualizing and carrying out the study. Despite his very busy schedule, he was always there when I needed to discuss one or another aspect of the work. Thanks go to the other members of my advisory committee, Drs. Judith L. Green and Frank Zidonis, for the time they spend reading my work and talking with me about it. Their suggestions helped shape the direction of my thought. I am grateful to many members of the Denison University community, as well. Drs. Keith Boone, Dennis Read, Kenneth Klatt, Tony Stoneburner, Kenneth Marshall, Janet Freeman, George Gilbert, Julie Mulroy, and Bonnie Lamvermeyer participated in the process of creating the experimental materials and the criteria for scoring them. Drs. Kenneth Marshall, Dennis Read, Tommy Burkett, Janet Freeman, Ronald Santoni, Judith Cochran, Dominic Consolo, William Nichols, James Freeman, Quentin Kraft, Tony Stoneburner, Garrett Jacobsen, and Richard Tobin allowed their students to participate, some in the preliminary study and some in the study reported here. The students were enthusiastic and careful participants. Dr. Rita Snyder provided assistance in the use of SPSS-X and valuable moral support. iii The members of the Denison Education Department were helpful to me in many important ways. Dr. Thomas Gallant, Jane King, Barbara Bruner, and Jane Richardson were unfailingly encouraging. Jane Richardson assisted by typing and producing the final copy. I thank my husband, Mike, my children, Annie and Mark, and the other members of my family for understanding my need to pursue this work and for their faith in me. VITA / June 16, 1948....................... 0...Born - Newton, Massachusetts 1970.................................... B.A., Denison University, Granville, Ohio 1972-1979...............................Teacher of English, Newark Public Schools, Newark, Ohio 1976.................................... M.A., Reading and Language, College of Education, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 1979-1987...... .............. .......... Assistant Dean for Educational Services and Instructor, Education Department, Denison University, Granville, Ohio 1987-present............................Instructor, Education Department, Denison University, Granville, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Robertson, L. & Russell, K. (1986). Teaching analytical reading and writing: a feminist approach. Teaching Philosophy, 9 (3), 207-217. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Reading v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................ iii VITA........................................................... v LIST OF TABLES................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES................................................ xi CHAPTER PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION......................................... 1 Statement of the Problem....................... 3 Definition of the Problem...................... 4 Overview of the Study.......................... 5 Scope and Limitations of the Study............. 7 Organization of the Study. .................. 8 2. THEORIES OF COMPREHENSION .......................... 9 Transactional Theory........................... 9 Response Theory................................ 11 Schema Theory............. 14 The Connection to a Philosophical Interpretation................................. 18 3. THEORIES AND STUDIES OF METAPHOR.................... 20 Theories of Metaphor........................... 20 Interaction Theory and Transactional Theory.......................................... 22 Conclusion..................................... 25 Studies of Metaphor............................ 26 Developmental Studies...................... 26 Studies of the Processes Adults Use in Comprehending Metaphors................ 32 Stage Models.................... 32 Salience of Attributes..................... 34 Effects of Context......................... 36 The Effect of Metaphor on Recall.......... 37 The Effect of Metaphor on Comprehension.... 40 The Effects of Instruction on the Ability to Use Metaphor........... 41 Conclusion..................................... 42 4. THE PROBLEM AND THE METHODOLOGY 43 Methodology........ 43 Part 1....................... 45 Part 2.......................................... 47 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................. 49 Part 1.......................................... 49 Honors Students.................... 51 Freshman Studies Students........ 56 Summary Data............................... 56 Memory Data................................ 57 Total Data...................... 60 Faculty Readers................ 65 The Metaphor Condition..................... 66 The Literal Condition....... 67 The Neither Condition...................... 68 Conclusion................................. 69 Part II......................................... 70 The Genetic Code Paragraph..................... 72 The Metaphor Condition....................... 72 The Literal Condition........................ 85 The Neither Condition........................ 98 The Artificial Paragraph........ ........ 100 The Literary Paragraph ........... 104 The Metaphor Condition....................... 104 The Literal Condition........................ 105 The Neither Condition........................ 105 6. INTERPRETATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................. 107 Interpretation and Conclusions................. 107 Implications for Further Study................. 116 APPENDICES A. Experimental Materials............................. 119 General Directions, Part I.......................... 120 Metaphor Condition, Part 1..................... 121 Literal Condition, Part 1...................... 127 Neither Condition, Part 1...................... 133 Criteria for Scoring....................... 139 Science Paragraph........................ 139 Artificial Paragraph..................... 140 Literary Paragraph....................... 141 vii General Directions, Fart II.............. 142 Metaphor Condition, Part II.................... 143 Literal Condition, Part II.................... 150 Neither Condition, Part II..................... 157 Criteria for Scoring....................... 164 Science Paragraph........................ 164 Artificial Paragraph............... 165 Literary Paragraph....................... 166 B. Diagrams of Oral Reponses to the Literary Paragraph.................................... 167 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................