Mapping models in novel metaphors and their effect on gaze behavior and default interpretations in native and target languages

封面

如何引用文章

详细

In the study, we address the problem of existing differences in reading and understanding novel metaphors in the text fragments in native and target languages (L1 and L2), with these differences potentially attributed to both the specifics of forming analogies in native and target languages, and the mapping characteristics of metaphors. The study identifies the contingency effects of several primary metaphors onto the gaze behavior and default interpretation of textual novel metaphors in L1 (Russian) and L2 (English). To proceed, we use the text fragments in L1 and L2 containing novel metaphors appearing in more and less focal syntactic positions in a two-stage oculographic experiment. We obtain the participants’ gaze metrics values and the participants’ responses specifying the target domains of the novel metaphors, which further allows us to disclose the contingencies. Methodologically, the study is grounded in the metaphor processing theories developed in cognitive psychology, which explore the structure of analogical reasoning and associative fluency as manifesting potentially different effects in L1 and L2. To validate it, we also address the cognitive linguistic theories which provide the framework for identifying the primary metaphor models (here the models PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT, PARTS ARE WHOLE, CONCRETE IS ABSTRACT) and for testing their effect onto information construal. We hypothesize that reading and understanding metaphors will proceed differently in L1 and L2, which is attributed to associative fluency in metaphor mapping in native and target languages. The experiment results do not show the differences in understanding the mapping model PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT in L1 and L2, whereas these differences appear in understanding the models PARTS ARE WHOLE and CONCRETE IS ABSTRACT with higher default interpretation index in L1. The model PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT is also found to stimulate higher gaze costs. The results suffice to claim that there are differences in the cognitive costs produced by primary metaphor models, which allows us to range and specify their role in information construal in L1 and L2.

作者简介

Maria Kiose

Moscow State Linguistic University; Institute of Linguistics RAS

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: maria_kiose@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7215-0604

Doctor Habil. of Philology, Associate Professor, leading researcher of the Centre for Socio-Cognitive studies (Moscow State Linguistic University) and of Multi-channel Communication Laboratory (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences). Her research interests embrace cognitive semantics, indirect naming in text, referential semantics, oculographic and corpus-based research of text inference and generation process.

Moscow, Russia

参考

  1. Altmann, Gerry T. M., Alan Garnham & Yvette Dennis. 1992. Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 685-712.
  2. Ashby, Jane, Carlos Roncero, Roberto de Almeida & Stephen Agauas. 2017. The early processing of metaphors and similes: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove) 1. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1278456
  3. Boers, Frank & Seth Lindstroember. 2012. Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000050
  4. Carroll, John B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chen, Siyuan. 2014. Cognitive load measurement from eye activity: Acquisition, efficacy, and real-time system design. PhD Thesis. Sydney: The University of New South Wales.
  6. Chen, Siyuan & Julien Epps. 2019. Task Load Estimation from Multimodal Head-Worn Sensors using Event Sequence Features. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 1. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319555
  7. Divjak, Dagmar, Petar Milin & Srdan Medimorec. 2020. Construal in language: A visual-world approach to the effects of linguistic alternations on event perception and conception. Cognitive Linguistics 19. 37-72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0103
  8. Fauconnier, Gilles. 2001. Conceptual blending and analogy. In Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak & Boicho N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, 254-285. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  9. Flecken, Monique, Johannes Gerwien, Mary Carroll & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2015. Analyzing gaze allocation during language planning; A cross-linguistic study on dynamic events. Language and Cognition 7. 138-166.
  10. Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-Mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7 (2). 155-170. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
  11. Gentner, Dedre & Brian Bowdle. 2008. Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. 109-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Grady, Joseph E. 2007. Metaphor. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 188-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Guilford, Joy Paul. 1967. Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior 1 (1). 3-14.
  14. Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka & Joost van de J. Veijer (eds.). 2011. Eye Tracking. A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. New York: Oxford University Press.
  15. Holyoak, Keith J. 1984. Analogical thinking and human intelligence. In Robert J. Sternberg (ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Vol. 2. 199-230. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
  16. Holyoak, Keith J. & Dushan Stamenkovich. 2018. Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin 144. 641-671. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000145
  17. Iriskhanova, Olga. 2014. The Games of Focus in Language: Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics of Focusing. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskoi kultury. (In Russ.).
  18. Kaushanskaya, Margarita & Katrina Rechtzigel. 2012. Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual wordlearning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19. 935-941. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0271-5
  19. Kiose, Maria I. 2020. The interplay of syntactic and lexical salience and its effect on default figurative responses. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 61 (74). 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2020-0004
  20. Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Langacker, Ronald W. 2016. Entrenchment in cognitive grammar. In Hans-Jorg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 39-56. Washington DC: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003
  22. Laposhina, Antonina N., Maria Yu. Lebedeva & Alexandra A. Berlin Khenis. 2022. Word frequency and text complexity: An eye-tracking study of young Russian readers. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 493-514. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30084
  23. Littlemore, Jeannette, Phyllis T. Chen, Almut Koester & John Barnden. 2011. Difficulties in metaphors comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics 32. 408-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr009
  24. Noë, Alva & J. Kevin O’Regan. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5). 883-917.
  25. Papafragou, Anna, Justin Hulbert & John Trueswell. 2008. Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 108. 155-184. https://doi.org/155-184. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007
  26. Pollio, Howard & Michael Smith. 1980. Metaphoric Competence and Complex Human Problem Solving. Cognition and Figurative Language. 365-392. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  27. Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124 (3). 372-422.
  28. Siewerska, Anna. 2004. On the discourse basis of person agreement. In Tuija Verhagen (ed.), Approaches to cognition through text and discourse, 33-48. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  29. Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Kathy Conklin & Norbert Schmitt. 2011. Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research 27. 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310382068
  30. Schmid, Hans-Jorg (ed.). 2016. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Washington DC: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110341423
  31. Solovyev, Valery D., Yulia A. Volskaya, Mariia I. Andreeva & Artem A. Zaikin. 2022a. Russian dictionary with concreteness / abstractness indices. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 515-549. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-29475
  32. Solovyev, Valery D., Marina. I. Solnyshkina, & Danielle S. McNamara. 2022b. Computational linguistics and discourse complexology: Paradigms and research methods. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 275-316. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-31326
  33. Staub, Adrian. 2015. Reading sentences: Syntactic parsing and semantic interpretation. In Alexander Pollatsek & Rebecca Treiman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading, 202-216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntie Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
  35. Toldova, Svetlana, Natalia Slioussar & Anastasia Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2022. Discourse complexity in the light of eye-tracking: A pilot Russian language study. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 449-470. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30140
  36. DRL - Slovar’ russkogo yazyka. 1999. [The Dictionary of the Russian Language] Anna P. Evgenjeva (ed.). Moscow: Rus. yaz.; Poligraphresursy. (in Russ.). (accessed 28 January 2022)
  37. Heredia, Roberto R. & Elva A. García. 2017. Bilingual Episodic Memory Processes. In: Alfredo Ardila, Anna B. Cieślicka, Roberto R. Heredia & Mónica Rosselli, Psychology of Bilingualism. The Cognitive and Emotional World of Bilinguals. Berlin: Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321494806_Bilingual_Episodic_Memory_Processes. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64099-0_6 (accessed 28 January 2022)
  38. Littlemore, Jeannette. 2002. Developing Metaphor Interpretation Strategies for Students of Economics: A Case Study. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité. http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/4119 (accessed 22 December 2021)
  39. RNC - Russian National Corpus. (In Russ.). http://www.ruscorpora.ru/ (accessed 22 December 2021)
  40. COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed 20 January 2022)

版权所有 © Kiose M., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##