Conventionality, Similarity, and the Metaphor / Simile Distinction
Conventionality, Similarity, and the Metaphor / Simile Distinction
复制标题
惯例、相似性和隐喻/明喻的区别
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Brian F. Bowdle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Selin Gokcesu;Brian F. Bowdle
名词性隐喻(形式X是Y的比喻语句)经常可以被重述为明喻(形式X的比喻语句类似于Y)。因此，可以说，时间既是一条河，也是一条河。这种语法变化通常被认为是任意的，隐喻和它们的明喻对应物是同义的。(事实上，隐喻传统上被定义为省略的明喻。)然而，一些研究表明，这两种形式实际上可能并不等同。例如，Gibb和Wales(1990)发现，在有具体谓词的比喻陈述中，明喻比隐喻更受欢迎，而Reynolds和Ortony(1980)发现，在发展过程中，明喻理解先于隐喻理解。这两种形式之间的差异是什么原因？最近提出了两项建议。根据Gentner和Bowdle(2001)的隐喻假说生涯，习惯性起着关键作用。在这一观点下，新的比喻陈述被处理为目标概念(a术语)和基本概念(b术语)之间的比较。因此，对于新奇的陈述来说，明喻比隐喻更受欢迎，因为明喻的语法形式意味着比较，而隐喻的语法形式则意味着范畴化。然而，随着隐喻基本术语的常规化，它们具有额外的、更抽象的含义，可以作为隐喻范畴。因此，传统的比喻陈述既可以作为涉及基词原义的比较处理，也可以作为涉及基词派生意义的范畴处理，这意味着它们既可以作为明喻，也可以作为隐喻。Aisenman(1999)提出了一种替代帐户。根据艾森曼的观点，隐喻和明喻之间的区别与比喻陈述所表达的相似类型密切相关。如果目标和基础之间的相似性主要是属性上的--也就是说，如果这两个项目在感知上是相似的--那么比喻形式将是首选的。另一方面，如果目标和基础之间的相似性主要是关系的--也就是说，如果两个项目在功能上相似--那么隐喻形式将是首选。这里的基本假设是，功能在概念上往往比物理外观更核心。因此，关系相似性应该要求更强的语法形式：即隐喻我们通过向受试者呈现目标和基本术语在属性和关系上相似的新颖和传统的比喻陈述来检验这两种隐喻/明喻区分的替代解释。在一个实验中，受试者接受了所有四种类型的陈述(新奇+归因、新奇+关系、常规+归因、常规+关系)作为隐喻和明喻，并被要求指出他们更喜欢哪种形式。获得了常规的主要效果，与常规陈述相比，新陈述更倾向于使用明喻。然而，在艾森曼所预测的方向上，只有相似类型的边际效应。在第二个实验中，受试者被呈现相同的陈述，每个陈述都是以隐喻或明喻的形式表达的。受试者被要求对这些陈述的适当性进行评分。习惯性与语法形式之间存在相互作用，因此明喻被认为比隐喻更适用于新奇的陈述，但不适用于常规陈述。相似类型与语法形式之间不存在交互作用。关系陈述在用比喻表达时并不被认为更贴切，而归因性陈述在用明喻表达时也不被认为更贴切。总体而言，这些实验结果支持隐喻假说及其区分隐喻/明喻的方法。然而，我们认为，这类相似性可以在常规化进程中发挥关键作用。关系比喻比归因比喻更容易导致传统隐喻范畴的抽象。事实上，我们的研究表明，大多数传统的隐喻基础都是关系定义的。
Nominal metaphors (figurative statements of the form X is Y) can often be restated as similes (figurative statements of the form X is like Y). Thus, one can say both Time is a river and Time is like a river. This grammatical alternation is often assumed to be arbitrary, with metaphors and their simile counterparts being synonymous. (Indeed, metaphors are traditionally defined as elliptical similes.) However, a handful of studies have suggested that the two forms may in fact not be equivalent. For example, Gibb and Wales (1990) found that similes are preferred over metaphors for figurative statements with concrete predicates, and Reynolds and Ortony (1980) found that simile comprehension developmentally precedes metaphor comprehension. What accounts for these differences between the two forms? Two recent proposals have been made. According to Gentner and Bowdle’s (2001) career of metaphor hypothesis, conventionality plays a key role. On this view, novel figurative statements are processed as comparisons between the target concept (a-term) and the base concept (bterm). Therefore, similes will be strongly preferred over metaphors for novel statements, as the grammatical form of similes suggests comparison, whereas the grammatical form of metaphors suggests categorization. As metaphoric base terms become conventionalized, however, they take on additional, more abstract meanings that can act as metaphoric categories. Thus, conventional figurative statements can be processed either as comparisons involving the original sense of the base term, or as categorizations involving the derived sense of the base term, which means that they can be phrased either as similes or as metaphors. Aisenman (1999) has proposed an alternative account. According to Aisenman, the distinction between metaphors and similes is closely tied to the type of similarity expressed by the figurative statement. If the similarity between the target and base is primarily attributional – that is, if both items are perceptually alike – then the simile form will be preferred. If, on the other hand, the similarity between the target and base is primarily relational – that is, if both items are functionally alike – then the metaphor form will be preferred. The basic assumption here is that function tends to be more conceptually central than physical appearance. Thus, relational similarity should call for the “stronger” grammatical form: namely, the metaphor We tested these two alternative accounts of the metaphor / simile distinction by presenting subjects with both novel and conventional figurative statements whose target and base terms were either attributionally similar or relationally similar. In one experiment, subjects received all four types of statements (novel + attributional, novel + relational, conventional + attributional, conventional + relational) as both metaphors and similes, and were asked to indicate which form they preferred. A main effect of conventionality was obtained, with the simile form being preferred more strongly for novel statements than for conventional statements. However, there was only a marginal effect of similarity type in the direction predicted by Aisenman’s account. In a second experiment, subjects were presented with the same statements, each statement being phrased either as a metaphor or as a simile. Subjects were asked to rate the aptness of the statements. An interaction between conventionality and grammatical form was obtained, such that similes were rated as more apt than metaphors for novel statements, but not for conventional statements. There was no interaction between similarity type and grammatical form. Relational statements were not rated as more apt when phrased as metaphors, and attributional statements were not rated as more apt when phrased as similes. Overall, the results of these experiments support the career of metaphor hypothesis and its approach to the metaphor / simile distinction. Nevertheless, we believe that type of similarity could play a key role during the process of conventionalization. Relational figurative comparisons may be more likely than attributional figurative comparisons to lead to the abstraction of conventional metaphoric categories. Indeed, our research suggests that the majority of conventional metaphor bases are relationally defined.