臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：概念隱喻的映照規則
作者：龔書萍
作者(外文)：Shu-Ping Gong
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：安可思
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2008
主題關鍵詞：概念映照模型；華語隱喻；隱喻釋義；語境；句子處理；Conceptual Mapping Model；metaphors in Mandarin Chinese；metaphor paraphrases；context；sentences processing
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:27
這個研究探討隱喻是如何建構兩個源域之間的概念映照。研究中檢驗三個映照的學說：以分類為主的學說 (例如：特徵分類模型)、以排列為主的學說(例如：結構排列模型)、以規則為主的學說 (例如：概念映照模型)。本研究測試兩種類型的新穎隱喻：其一為依據映照規則的新穎隱喻；另一個為違反映照規則的新穎隱喻。本研究提出以規則為主的學說可以解釋隱喻是如何處理。我們預測人會使用映照規則來處理隱喻，另外，我們也假設了語境會影響人是否提取映照規則來理解新穎隱喻。
四個實驗結果 (包括一個隱喻釋義作業及三個閱讀作業) 證明了以規則為主的學說。實驗ㄧ探討人類是是如何釋義隱喻。我們發現，在受試者所產生的釋義中，依據映照規則的釋義出現的頻率多於違反映照規則的釋義。這個結果說明了受試者使用映照規則來釋義隱喻。
實驗二及實驗三使用閱讀時間的測量方式來探討受試者使用映照規則來理解隱喻是否受到語境的影響。在實驗二中，當受試者整合新穎隱喻句子到源域不一致的語境時，依據映照規則的新穎隱喻跟違反映照規則的新穎隱喻都很不容易理解，二者閱讀時間沒有顯著差異。然而，在實驗三中，我們發現受試者在整合新穎隱喻句子到源域一致的語境時，依據映照規則的新穎隱喻比違反映照規則的新穎隱喻容易理解，二者閱讀時間有顯著差異。實驗四也是使用閱讀時間測量方式來探討在沒有語境的狀況下，受試者是否能使用映照規則來幫助理解新穎隱喻。結果顯示依據映照規則的新穎隱喻跟違反映照規則的新穎隱喻都很不容易理解，二者閱讀時間沒有顯著差異。
這三個閱讀實驗結果顯示切題的語境訊息會促進理解依據映照規則的新穎隱喻。然而，不切題的語境訊息會或沒有先前語境都不會影響兩種新穎隱喻的理解。這個結果與規則為主的學說預測ㄧ致：在一些狀況下依據映照規則新穎隱喻的閱讀時間比違反映照規則的新穎隱喻的閱讀時間較短。
本研究結果支持概念映照模型的假設，受試者會使用映照規則來解釋及理解隱喻。另外，這個研究顯示先前語境對於不同新穎隱喻有不同的影響。依據映照規則的新穎隱喻容易受到先前語境的影響，因為他們的語意可以理解，比較容易整合到先前語境中；違反映照規則的新穎隱喻不容易受到語境的影響，因為他們的語意難以理解，比較困難整合到先前語境中。
This research investigates how metaphors construct conceptual mappings between domains. We evaluate three mapping accounts: the category-based account (i.e., the Attribution Categorization Model), the alignment-based account (i.e., the Structural Mapping Model), and the principle-based account (i.e., the Conceptual Mapping Model). In this study, two types of novel metaphor sentences were examined: novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles and novel metaphor sentences not following mapping principles. We propose that the principle-based account can explain how metaphors are processed. We predict that people will use the mapping principles to process metaphors. In addition, it is hypothesized that context affects whether mapping principles will be accessed when people comprehend novel metaphors.
Four experiments (i.e., a metaphor paraphrasing task and three reading tasks) support the principle-based account. Experiment 1 examined how metaphors were paraphrased. We found that participants produced paraphrases relating to mapping principles more frequently than those not relating to mapping principles. This suggests that participants used mapping principles to paraphrase metaphors.
Experiments 2 and 3 used a timed reading measure to examine whether context affects the access of mapping principles in understanding metaphors. In Experiment 2, we found that participants processed novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles as slowly as those not following mapping principles in the integration of novel metaphor sentences into domain-incongruent discourse. The reading times between two types of sentences did not reach significant difference. However, in Experiment 3, we found that participants comprehended novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles faster than those not following mapping principles in the integration of novel metaphor sentences into domain-congruent discourse. The reading times between two types of sentences reached significant difference. Experiment 4 also used a timed reading measure to examine whether participants access mapping principles for processing novel metaphor sentences without prior context. The results showed that the novel metaphor sentences were read as slow as those not following mapping principles. The reading time between two types of sentence conditions did not reach significant difference.
The results of three reading tasks show that relevant contextual information can facilitate the comprehension of novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles. However, irrelevant contextual information or no prior context can not affect the processing of both types of novel metaphor sentences. The results are consistent with that the principle-based account that novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles are processed faster than those not following mapping principles in certain conditions.
This study supports the Conceptual Mapping Model that participants use mapping principles to interpret and comprehend novel metaphors. In addition, this work demonstrates that prior context differently impacts the processing of two types of novel metaphors: novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles, because their meanings are interpretable and are easily integrated into discourse, are affected by prior context; in contrast, novel metaphors not following mapping principles, because their meanings are less interpretable and are not easily integrated into discourse, are not affected by prior context.
Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairing in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Y. C. Hsiao (Ed.). Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference. 273–302. Taipei: Cheng-Chi University.
Ahrens, K. (Forthcoming). Mapping Principles for Conceptual Metaphors. In Cameron, Lynne, Alice Deignan, Graham Low, Zazie Todd (Eds.). Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. John Benjamins.
Ahrens, K., Chung, S.-F., & Huang, C.-R. (2003). Conceptual Metaphors: Ontology-based Representation and Corpora Driven Mapping Principles. Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language. 35–41.
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C.-R. (2004). From Lexical Semantics to Conceptual Metaphors: Mapping Principle Verification with WordNet and SUMO. In D. Ji, L. K. Teng, & H. Wang (Eds.). Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of the 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5). 99–106. Singapore: COLIPS.
Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Gerrig, R. J. (1995). Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 21: 612–25.
Becker A. H. (1997). Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol. 12(4): 243–59.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of Metaphor. Psychological Review. 112(1): 193–216.
Bortfeld, H. & McGlone, M. (2001). The Continuum of Metaphor Processing. Metaphor & Symbol. 16(1&2): 75–86.
Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group (CKIP) (1995). Corpus-Based Frequency Count of Words in Journal Chinese. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics. 16(1): 22–9.
Chung, S.-F. (2007). A Corpus-Driven Approach to Source Domain Determination. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. National Taiwan University.
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition. 30: 958–68.
Gentner, D., & Boronat, C. B. (1992). Metaphor as mapping. Paper presented at the Workshop on Metaphor, Tel Aviv.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (Eds.). The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. 199–253. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Gentnern, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language. 37: 331–55.
Gernsbacher, M., Keysar, B., Robertson, R., & Werner, N. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language. 45: 433–450.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 37: 141–154.
Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition. 36: 35–68.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics. 8 (3): 183–206.
Giora, R., & Fein, F. (1999). Irony: context and salience. Metaphor & Symbol. 14(4): 241–57.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 36: 50–67.
Gong, S.-P., & Ahrens, K. (2006). On understanding conceptual metaphor in Mandarin Chinese: the role of context. Presented at the Joint Conference of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-14) and the 10th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-10). Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Taipei. May 25–9.
Gong, S.-P., & Ahrens, K. (2007). Processing Conceptual Metaphors in On-Going Discourse. Metaphor & Symbol. 22(4): 313–30.
Gong, S.-P., & Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2008a). Chinese Word Sketch and Mapping Principles: A Corpus-Based Study of Conceptual Metaphors Using the BUILDING Source Domain. International Journal of Computer Processing of Languages. 21(1): 13–27.
Gong, S.-P., & Ahrens, K. (2008b). A Frequency-based Collocational Approach to Determining Mapping Principles. To be Presented at the 7th International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM7), University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain. May 29–31.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7(2): 2003.
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are Buildings Revisited. Cognitive Linguistics. 8(4): 267–90.
Huang, C.-R. (1995). The Morpho-lexical Meaning of Mutual Information: A Corpus-based Approach Towards a Definition of Mandarin Words. Presented at the 1995 Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting. New Orleans.
Huang, C.-R., Chung, S.-F., & Ahrens, K. (2006). An ontology-based exploration of knowledge systems for metaphor. In K. Rajiv, R. Ramesh, & R. Sharman (Eds.). Ontologies: A Handbook of Principles, Concepts and Applications in Information Systems. Volume 14. Springer.
Ivanko, S., & Pexman, P. (2003). Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes. 35(3): 241–79.
Kemper, S. (1989). Priming the Comprehension of Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 4(1): 1–17.
Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. (2000). Conventional Language: How Metaphorical Is It? Journal of Memory and Language. 43: 576–93.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought (Second Ed.). 202–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lu, H.-Y. (2002). Processing of Conceptual Metaphors in Mandarin Chinese—A Conceptual Mapping Model Based Study. Unpublished Master Thesis. National Taiwan University.
McGlone, M. (1996). Conceptual Metaphors and Figurative Language Interpretation: Food for Thought? Journal of Memory and Language. 35: 544–65.
McGlone, M. (2007). What is the explanatory value of conceptual metaphors? Language & Communication. 27: 109–26.
Nayak, N. P., & Gibbs, R. W. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 19(3): 315–30.
Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor & Symbol. 16(3&4): 173–92.
Pinker, S. (1995). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Viking.
Pfaff, K. L., Gibbs, R. W., & Johnson, M. D. (1997). Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics. 18: 59–83.
Rips, L. & Estin, P. (1998) Components of objects and events. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 309-330.
Sproat, R., Shih, C., Gale, W., & Chang, N. (1996). A Stochastic Finite-State Word-Segmentation Algorithm for Chinese. Computational Linguistics. 22(3): 377–404.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：804（臺灣：788，外國：16） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2196945 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68004646
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上