Domain mapping or schematic mapping?! How source domain in metaphor projects on target domain: visual and auditory short-term recognition

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
F. Shafiei 1
H. Ghassemzadeh 2
H. Ashayeri 3
F. Safavimanesh 4
M. Pourmohammad 5
1 PhD Candidate of Cognitive Linguistics. Institute for Cognitive Sciences Studies, Department of Cognitive Linguistics
2 Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
3 Professor, Department of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences
4 Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Institute for Brain and Cognitive Science, Department of Cognitive Modeling
5 PhD. Assistant Professor.,Institute for Cognitive Sciences Studies, Department of Cognitive Linguistics
Abstract
The nature of metaphor, metaphoric understanding, and its functions have been recognized as three main issues in research and theoretical formulations on metaphor and metaphor processing. In general, metaphor is defined as understanding and experiencing one thing based on another. Metaphor can also be considered as an expression that has two conceptual domains in which one of the domains is experienced and understood according to the other. These two conceptual domains are known as target domain and source domain. In this study, we examine the relationship between conceptual metaphor and formation of a schema in short texts regarding target and source domains.

The main tools of the study were the texts written in fluent Persian and divided into two categories of metaphorical texts and their equivalent non-metaphorical versions. Both texts have had a shared schema. Furthermore, the number of words were equal in both texts. For this purpose, 3 metaphorical and 3 equivalent non-metaphorical short texts were designed in Psychopy software in 2 visual and auditory versions and 47 people were exposed to the short-term recognition after reading/listening to it. There were eight texts including 3 metaphorical and 3 non-metaphorical ones plus 2 texts that were used as filler texts which were excluded from the final analyses. The texts were organized in such a manner that the metaphorical text played before its corresponding non-metaphorical text with an interval. At the next round, the non-metaphorical text was played before its metaphorical version.

The sample was selected through convenience sampling which included 80 twenty to twenty-five-year-old students of Foreign Languages School and Management School of Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran. Since variations in memory capacity can affect the test results, they were given a Persian word recognition test to ensure relative consistency among all participants' memory capacity.

The test processes in the visual and auditory tests were the same except in the method of presenting the texts on the screen or playing through the headphone.

In this study, descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used for analyzing the data and providing tentative answers to the research questions. All the analyses were implemented SPSS V.23 software. To analyse the data in each of the visual and auditory tasks separately, Friedman non-parameter test was used. For comparing the data of the visual and auditory tasks, Mann-Whitney test was used.

Results indicated that in metaphorical texts, there are traces of the non-metaphorical text`s main schema. This finding brings us closer to the assumption that it is source domain`s schema that projects on target domain in metaphors and makes it more understandable.


Keywords

Subjects

استرنبرگ ر ج. (1393). روان‌شناسی شناختی. سیّد کمال خرّازی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
افراشی آ، حسامی ت، سالاس ب. (1391). بررسی تطبیقی استعاره‌هی مفهومی جهتی در زبان‌های اسپانیایی و فارسی. پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی. دورۀ 3، شمارۀ 4: 23-1.
بست ج. (1376). روش‌های تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. حسن پاشاشریفی و نرگس طالقانی. تهران: انتشارات رشد.
بهار ف، شکری ی. (1398). استعاره و گفت‌وگومندی در رجزهای شاه‌نامه بر اساس نظریّۀ باختین. جستارهای زبانی. دورۀ 10، شمارۀ 2،: 294-271.
جارالهی ف. و دیگران. (1391). انتخاب فهرست برتر در بازشناسی لغات در افراد با شنوایی طبیعی. پژوهش در علوم توانبخشی. سال 8، شمارۀ 2.
فردنبرگ ج، سیلورمن گ. (1397). علم شناخت یا شناخت‌پژوهی. حبیب‌الله قاسم‌زاده. تهران: انتشارات ارجمند.
قاسم‌زاده ح. (1385). استعاره و پردازش استعاره‌ای از دیدگاه گنت‌نر و گلاکس‌برگ. زبان و ذهن. سال اوّل، شمارۀ 1، 51-21.
قاسم‌زاده ح. (1385). فرهنگ و طرح‌واره‌های ذهنی. بازتاب دانش. شمارۀ 1: 68-57.
قاسم‌زاده ح. (1392). استعاره و شناخت. تهران، انتشارات ارجمند.

مصلح م. (1380). ساخت و ارزشیابی آزمون بازشناسی گفتار بزرگ‌سالان فارسی‌زبان. شنوایی‌شناسی. دورۀ 9، شمارۀ 1 و2.

Allbritton D W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic activity. 10.1: 33-46.
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. 21.3: 612-625.
Anderson R C. & Pearson P D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Arbib M. Conklin E. & Hill J. (1987). From Schema Theory to Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett F C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett F C. (1936). Frederic Charles Bartlett [autobiography]. In Carl Murchison (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography. 3: 39-52.
Brewer W F. & Nakamura G V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. Technical report. No. 325. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Colman A M. (2008). Oxford dictionary of psychology (3ed). Oxford university press.
Gentner D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child development. 59 (1): 47-59.
Gentner D. & Markman A B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist. 52: 45-56.
Gentner D. Holyoak K J. & Kokinov B. (Eds.). (2001). The analogical mind: Perspective from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gick M L. & Holyoak K J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive psychology. 15, 1-38.
Holyoak K J. & Stamenkoviĉ, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. American Psychological Association. Vol. 144, No. 6, 641-671.
Kövecses Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff G. (1993). The contemporary Theoty of Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 202-251. New York: Cambridge Universty Press.
Lakoff G. & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff G. & Turner M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker W R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. California: Stanford University Press.
Miller G A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review. 63, 81-97.
Rumelhart D E. (1975). Notes on schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins. (Eds.), Representation and understanding: studies in cognitive science. 211-236. New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart D E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In: R. J. Spiro et al. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 56
May and June 2020
Pages 85-113