請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41862
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 安可思 | |
dc.contributor.author | Shu-Ping Gong | en |
dc.contributor.author | 龔書萍 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T00:34:51Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-01-20 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-01-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-01-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 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 Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.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. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41862 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 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。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T00:34:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-D91142001-1.pdf: 1791928 bytes, checksum: 2132042b5f28db4da855e1d9493bea6e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Signature Page i
Acknowledgments ii Abstract in Chinese iii Abstract in English iv Table of Contents v List of Figures x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Fundamental Questions 1 1.2 Conceptual Metaphors and Mappings 3 1.3 Conceptual Metaphors and Context Effect 6 1.4 Overview of Dissertation 8 Chapter 2 Psycholinguistic Models of Metaphors 14 2.1 The Attributive Categorization Model 14 2.2 The Structural Mapping Model 16 2.3 The Conceptual Mapping Model 18 Chapter 3 Mapping Principles: Evidence from Corpus Data 31 3.1 Mapping Principles Using the Target Domain of IDEA 33 3.2 Mapping Principles Using the Source Domain of BUILDING 37 Chapter 4 The Context Effect in Processing Metaphors 45 4.1 Context Effects on the Processing of Conventional Metaphors 45 4.2 Context Effects on the Processing of Novel Metaphors 53 Chapter 5 Processing Two Types of Novel Metaphors in Different Contexts 61 5.1 Psycholinguistic Models of Metaphors 61 5.2 Mapping Principles between Domains 63 5.3 The Role of Context on the Processing of Metaphors 64 5.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses 66 5.5 Predictions 70 5.5.1 Exp 1: Paraphrasing Metaphors 71 5.5.2 Exp. 2: Reading Metaphors in Domain-incongruent Paragraphs 73 5.5.3 Exp. 3: Reading Metaphors in Domain-congruent Paragraphs 79 5.5.4 Exp. 4: Reading Metaphors at a Sentence Level 84 Chapter 6 Using Mapping Principles to Interpret Metaphors 89 6.1 Experiment 1: Paraphrasing Metaphors 89 6.2 Method 91 6.2.1 Participants 92 6.2.2 Materials 93 6.2.3 Procedure 95 6.2.4 Analysis 96 6.3 Results and Discussion 98 Chapter 7 Integration of a Novel Metaphor into Domain-incongruent Context 116 7.1 Experiment 2: Reading Metaphors in Domain-incongruent Paragraphs 116 7.2 Method 121 7.2.1 Participants 121 7.2.2 Materials 122 7.2.3 Apparatus 130 7.2.4 Procedure 131 7.3 Results and Discussion 133 Chapter 8 Integration of a Novel Metaphor into Domain-Congruent Context 139 8.1 Experiment 3: Reading Metaphors in Domain-congruent Paragraphs 139 8.2 Method 144 8.2.1 Participants 144 8.2.2 Materials 144 8.2.3 Apparatus 153 8.2.4 Procedure 153 8.3 Results and Discussion 155 Chapter 9 Integration of a Novel Metaphor into a Sentence 165 9.1 Experiment 4: Reading Metaphors at a Sentence Level 165 9.2 Method 168 9.2.1 Participants 168 9.2.2 Materials 169 9.2.3 Apparatus 172 9.2.4 Procedure 172 9.3 Results and Discussion 174 Chapter 10 Conclusion 182 10.1 Summary and General Discussion 182 10.2 Contribution of This Work 200 10.3 Implications, Limitations and Future Study 203 References 209 Appendices 215 A: Thirty-six “X IS Y” metaphors with their corresponding mapping principles examined in the metaphor paraphrasing task 215 B: Subject information sheet 220 C: Instructions for the paraphrase task and one-page sample of the questionnaire 221 D: Instructions for the salience judgment task 223 E: Seven examples of participants’ paraphrases with rating scores on the relevance of mapping principles 224 F: The percentage of MP-related paraphrases and MP-unrelated paraphrases occurring in the first produced interpretations of forty-eight participants 231 G: The percentage of MP-related paraphrases and MP-unrelated paraphrases occurring in the most salient interpretations of forty-eight participants 232 H: The percentage of MP-related paraphrases and MP-unrelated paraphrases in the first produced interpretations for the thirty-six “X IS Y” metaphors 233 I: The percentage of MP-related paraphrases and MP-unrelated paraphrases in the most salient interpretations for the thirty-six “X IS Y” metaphors 234 J: Experimental and filler materials for Experiment 2 235 K: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the source domain judgment task pre-tested for the materials used in Experiment 2 243 L: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the mapping principle verification task pre-tested for the materials used in Experiment 2 245 M: Comprehension questions used in Experiment 2 247 N: Practice materials used in Experiments 2 and 3 248 O: Instructions for Experiment 2 249 P: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the interpretability rating task tested in Experiment 2 250 Q: Experimental and filler materials for Experiment 3 252 R: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the mapping principle verification task pre-tested for the materials used in Experiment 3 261 S: Comprehension questions used in Experiment 3 263 T: Instructions for Experiment 3 264 U: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the interpretability rating task tested in Experiment 3 265 V: Experimental and filler sentences for Experiment 4 267 W: Comprehension questions used in Experiment 4 272 X: Instructions for Experiment 4 273 Y: Practice sentences used in Experiment 4 274 Z: The instructions and a sample of the questionnaires for the interpretability rating task tested in Experiment 4 275 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 概念隱喻的映照規則 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Mapping Principles in the Processing of Conceptual Metaphors | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 鄧育仁,李佳穎,蘇以文,張顯達 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 概念映照模型,華語隱喻,隱喻釋義,語境,句子處理, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Conceptual Mapping Model,metaphors in Mandarin Chinese,metaphor paraphrases,context,sentences processing, | en |
dc.relation.page | 276 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-01-06 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.75 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。