Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 3;8:871. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00871

Table 2.

Psycholinguistic properties of literal and metaphoric sentences.

Literal
Metaphor
Nominal-Entity Nominal-Event Predicate Nominal-Entity Nominal-Event Predicate

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Base auditory imagery 2.63 (1.2) 2.61 (1.4) 2.07 (1.16) 2.63 (1.2) 2.61 (1.4) 2.07 (1.16)
Base visual imagery 3.66 (1.14) 3.2 (0.59) 3.41 (0.72) 3.66 (1.14) 3.2 (0.59) 3.41 (0.72)
Concreteness 480 (76) 474 (46) 500 (53) 450 (57) 449 (69) 474 (76)
Frequency* 92.9 (159) 89.9 (142.4) 86.7 (85.3) 90.8 (123.7) 91.8 (128) 95.6 (133.7)
No. of characters 33.3 (4.2) 32 (5.1) 33.6 (5.2) 34.3 (4.6) 32.7 (5.2) 34.9 (4)
No. of words 6.1 (0.4) 6.2 (0.4) 6.2 (0.5) 6.1 (0.6) 6.1 (0.5) 6 (0.6)
No. of content words 3.2 (0.5) 3.2 (0.4) 3.3 (0.5) 3.2 (0.5) 3.1 (0.5) 3.3 (0.4)
Interpretability n/a n/a n/a 0.94 (0.08) 0.94 (0.08) 0.96 (0.05)
Familiarity 5.28 (0.73) 5.14 (1.11) 5.26 (1.23) 4.96 (0.76) 4.83 (1.18) 4.86 (1.37)
Naturalness 5.68 (0.73) 5.76 (0.95) 5.48 (1.24) 4.84 (0.82) 5.1 (1.07) 4.8 (1.34)
Imageability 5.55 (0.83) 5.67 (0.97) 5.8 (1.08) 4.17 (0.97) 4.27 (0.78) 3.94 (1.16)
Figurativeness 1.88 (0.73) 2.02 (0.92) 1.78 (0.91) 5.62 (0.56) 5.28 (0.77) 5.25 (1.02)
Valence RT 1279 (213) 1390 (182) 1426 (237) 1351 (131) 1432 (220) 1495 (200)

*SUBTLWF values from Brysbaert and New (2009).