The effect of repeated presentation and aptness of figurative comparisons on preference for metaphor forms
The effect of repeated presentation and aptness of figurative comparisons on preference for metaphor forms
复制标题
重复呈现和比喻比较的恰当性对隐喻形式偏好的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Kusumi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Nakamoto;T. Kusumi
重复呈现和比喻比较的适宜性对隐喻形式偏好的影响Keiko Nakamoto (kenakamoto@nifty.com) Takashi Kusumi （kusumi@mbox.kudpc.kyoto-u.ac.jp）日本京都大学教育研究生院认知心理学系，吉田本町，Sakyo-ku， Kyoto 606-8501介绍由两个名词（目标和基础）组成的比喻比较可以用两种语法形式来表达，即：明喻形式（X像Y）或隐喻形式（X是Y）。近年来，许多研究表明，隐喻和明喻之间存在着实质性的差异。特别是，有很多证据表明人们对比喻比较的语法偏好（例如，Chiappe & Kennedy, 1999）。在解释这种与比喻比较有关的语法形式偏好的假说中，我们主要关注由Bowdle & Gentner（1999）提出的隐喻生涯假说。隐喻的职业生涯假说认为，为了达到某种隐喻意义而重复使用特定的基本术语，会导致隐喻意义的词汇化，成为基本术语的次要意义，这种约定俗成的过程导致隐喻形式偏好。相比之下，Chiappe & Kennedy（1999,2001）则认为，当比较高度适宜时，隐喻形式可能是首选的，因为隐喻形式意味着目标对象将继承基词的几乎所有特征。换句话说，隐喻形式暗示了范畴断言。本研究以Bowdle & Gentner（1999）的“体外约定俗成”为基础，通过实验验证隐喻职业生涯假说。此外，我们观察到比较的适宜性和基本项的重复呈现之间的相互作用。比较适宜度（高/中等）X研究阶段基本术语的重复次数（0 /5次）。两者都在受试者变量范围内。36名大学生参加了实验。所有人的母语都是日语。实验分为两个阶段；研究和测试阶段。对于测试阶段，我们准备了16个比较作为测试阶段的测试项目。在初步研究中，一半的测试项目被评为高度倾向，另一半被评为中度倾向（M=3.52，在5分制中分别为2.39）。我们根据Chiappe & Kennedy（1999）定义了适应性。对于每个比较，准备了两种语法形式，隐喻和明喻。在研究阶段，我们为测试阶段比较的每个碱基准备了5个目标项。例如，对于测试“百科全书（像）金矿”，选择了新的目标术语，如{图书馆，书…}。这些词与词根（金矿）结合在一起，构成了明喻形式的比较。为两个阶段准备了填充语句：研究阶段有40个比较，测试阶段有两个类别对（例如，大象-动物）和两个字面上相似的对（例如，柠檬-橙子）。在研究阶段，参与者以随机顺序呈现研究项目，并被要求用几句话写下他们对比较的解释；他们还被要求以5分制对可理解性进行评分。延迟五分钟后，他们被要求对每个目标碱基对的语法形式（隐喻或明喻）进行评分，满分为7分。表1显示了测试阶段比较的平均语法偏好等级，较高的数字表明对隐喻形式的偏好高于明喻形式。表1显示，先前重复的基本术语增加了参与者对隐喻形式的偏好。此外，还出现了一种趋势，即重复的效果因比较的恰当性而异。2 × 2重复测量方差分析显示，重复的主效应显著（F(1,35)=11.52, p< 0.01）。重复与适应度之间的交互作用有显著性差异（F(1,35)=3.03, p<.10）。表1。平均隐喻形成偏好等级（和标准差）作为重复的函数研究阶段重复比较能力无5次高中等综上所述，这些结果支持隐喻的职业生涯假说。此外，他们认为比较的适宜性促进了基本术语的约定俗成。这种相互作用的含义是，当新创造的隐喻意义高度适宜时，即当它具有更多的隐喻含义时，它更有可能被词汇化。参考文献Bowdle， b.f., & genner， D.（1999）。隐喻理解：从比较到分类。在M.哈恩和S. C.斯通斯（编），程序。认知科学学会第21届年会（第90-95页）。莫瓦，新泽西州：劳伦斯·厄尔鲍姆协会。Chiappe， D, & Kennedy， J. M.（1999）。机敏预示着对隐喻或明喻的偏好，以及回忆偏差。心理科学通报与评论，6,668-676。
The effect of repeated presentation and aptness of figurative comparisons on preference for metaphor forms Keiko Nakamoto (kenakamoto@nifty.com) Takashi Kusumi (kusumi@mbox.kudpc.kyoto-u.ac.jp) Department of Cognitive Psychology in Education, Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan Introduction Figurative comparisons consisting of two nouns (a target and a base) can be expressed in two grammatical forms, i.e., in simile form (X is like Y), or in metaphor form (X is Y). Recently, many studies have shown that there are substantial differences between metaphors and similes. In particular, much evidence has been found for people’s grammatical preference for figurative comparisons (e.g., Chiappe & Kennedy, 1999). Among hypotheses proposed for explaining this grammatical form preference in relation to figurative comparisons, we focused mainly on the career of metaphor hypothesis, proposed by Bowdle & Gentner (1999). The career of metaphor hypothesis suggests that the repeated use of a particular base term, as intending a certain metaphorical sense, will result in lexicalization of the metaphoric sense as a secondary meaning to that of the base term, and that this conventionalization process causes the metaphor form preference. In contrast, Chiappe & Kennedy (1999, 2001) have claimed that the metaphor form might be preferred when a comparison is highly apt, because the metaphor form implies that the target will inherit almost all the features of the base term. In other words, the metaphor form implies the category assertion. In this study, we conducted an experiment to test the career of metaphor hypothesis, based on Bowdle & Gentner’s (1999) “in vitro conventionalization”. In addition, we observed the interaction between the aptness of comparisons and the repeated presentation of the base terms. Method Design Aptness of comparisons (High/Moderate) X The number of repetition of base terms in the study phase (0 /5 times). Both were within subject variables. Participants Thirty-six undergraduates participated in the experiment. All were native Japanese speakers. Materials and Procedures The experiment consisted of two phases; the study and the test phase. For the test phase, we prepared 16 comparisons as the test items in the test phase. Half of the test items were rated as highly apt, and the other half as moderately apt in a preliminary study (M=3.52 and 2.39 on a 5-point scale, respectively) . We defined the aptness according to Chiappe & Kennedy (1999). For each comparison, two grammatical forms, a metaphor and a simile, were prepared. For the study phase, we prepared five target terms for each base of the comparison in the test phase. For example, for the test “An encyclopedia is (like) a goldmine”, the new target terms such as {library, book…} were selected. These terms were combined with the base (goldmine) and made up the comparison in simile form. Filler statements were prepared for both phases: 40 comparisons for the study phase, and two category-pairs (e.g., elephant-animal) and two literally-similar-pairs (e.g., lemon-orange) for the test phase. In the study phase, the participants were presented with the study items in random order and required to write down their interpretation of the comparison in a few words; they were also required to rate the comprehensibility on a 5-point scale. After a five-minute delay, they were asked to rate which grammatical form (metaphor or simile) was more natural or reasonable for each target – base pair, on a 7-point scale. Results and Discussion The mean grammatical preference rating for the comparisons in the test phase are shown in Table 1, transformed so that higher numbers indicate a preference for the metaphor form over the simile form. Table 1 shows that previous repetition of the base term increased the participants’ preference for the metaphor form. Moreover, a tendency emerged, in that the effect of the repetition differs by the aptness of the comparisons. A 2 X 2 repeated measures analysis of variance on the subject means showed that the main effect of repetition was significant (F(1,35)=11.52, p<.01). The interaction between repetition and aptness was marginally significant (F(1, 35)=3.03, p<.10). Table 1. Mean metaphor form preference ratings (and standard deviations) as a function of repetition Repetition in Study Phase Aptness of comparison None 5 times High Moderate In summary, these results support the career of metaphor hypothesis. Furthermore, they suggest that the aptness of a comparison promotes the conventionalization of the base term. The implication of this interaction is that the newly created metaphoric meaning is more likely to be lexicalized when it is highly apt, that is, when it has more metaphoric implications. References Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proc .of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.90-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 668-676.