Working memory and vocabulary knowledge sustain activation of the literal meaning of metaphors during sentence comprehension.

Abstract

Metaphors convey meanings beyond their literal interpretation, requiring individuals to rely on linguistic and cognitive resources beyond those used for literal language. Models of metaphor comprehension propose different routes to deriving metaphorical content. The indirect-access model suggests that literal meaning is accessed first and then rejected if context demands, whereas the direct-access model argues that metaphorical content is retrieved automatically without an initial literal interpretation. However, previous research has yielded mixed findings on this issue. We examine whether individual differences in metaphor processing explain these inconsistencies. We hypothesize that individuals may differ in their ability to retrieve metaphorical content or inhibit literal meaning directly. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences such as John is an early bird so he can... and were slower and less likely to select a target continuation (e.g., attend) when it was paired with a distractor related to the literal meaning of the metaphor (e.g., fly) compared to an unrelated distractor (e.g., cry). This literal awakening effect was more pronounced in individuals with higher vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity. In Experiment 2, we examined whether the effect persisted when distractors were no longer grammatical in context (e.g., attend versus flying or crying). The literal awakening effect remained but was no longer modulated by individual differences. These findings suggest that, under semantic and syntactic competition, individuals with higher vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity may attempt to reinterpret the related distractor as an elaboration of the metaphor, indicating that activation of the literal meaning of metaphors is sustained by vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity.