Immorality backward, morality forward? Metaphorical morality in Chinese-English bilinguals.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Processing Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1007/s10339-024-01225-w
Huilan Yang, Neng Yang
{"title":"Immorality backward, morality forward? Metaphorical morality in Chinese-English bilinguals.","authors":"Huilan Yang, Neng Yang","doi":"10.1007/s10339-024-01225-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explored whether instructing participants to make forward or backward joystick movements in response to morality words is consistent with the conceptual metaphor MORAL IS MOVING FORWARD/IMMORAL IS MOVING BACKWARD in Chinese-English bilinguals' first and second languages. Chinese-English bilinguals were instructed to categorize words as moral or immoral while moving a joystick in a compatible block (moral-forward, immoral-backward) and an incompatible block (moral-backward, immoral-forward). The results revealed three main conclusions: First, participants showed faster categorization of immoral words when their responses involved backward joystick movements compared to forward joystick movements. Second, participants also demonstrated a slightly faster categorization of moral words when their responses involved backward joystick movements compared to forward joystick movements. Third, Chinese morality words were categorized faster overall than English morality words. However, despite a slightly larger effect size observed in L1, the action compatibility effects for morality words exhibited a similar pattern across both languages. In sum, bilinguals showed shared access to the IMMORAL IS MOVING BACKWARD conceptual metaphor across both L1 and L2, but they did not access the MORAL IS MOVING FORWARD conceptual metaphor in either L1 or L2. This study provides new evidence supporting the conceptual metaphor theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":47638,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Processing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Processing","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-024-01225-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explored whether instructing participants to make forward or backward joystick movements in response to morality words is consistent with the conceptual metaphor MORAL IS MOVING FORWARD/IMMORAL IS MOVING BACKWARD in Chinese-English bilinguals' first and second languages. Chinese-English bilinguals were instructed to categorize words as moral or immoral while moving a joystick in a compatible block (moral-forward, immoral-backward) and an incompatible block (moral-backward, immoral-forward). The results revealed three main conclusions: First, participants showed faster categorization of immoral words when their responses involved backward joystick movements compared to forward joystick movements. Second, participants also demonstrated a slightly faster categorization of moral words when their responses involved backward joystick movements compared to forward joystick movements. Third, Chinese morality words were categorized faster overall than English morality words. However, despite a slightly larger effect size observed in L1, the action compatibility effects for morality words exhibited a similar pattern across both languages. In sum, bilinguals showed shared access to the IMMORAL IS MOVING BACKWARD conceptual metaphor across both L1 and L2, but they did not access the MORAL IS MOVING FORWARD conceptual metaphor in either L1 or L2. This study provides new evidence supporting the conceptual metaphor theory.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不道德向后,道德向前?汉英双语者的隐喻道德。
本研究探讨了让被试在回答道德词语时向前或向后移动操纵杆是否与汉英双语者第一语言和第二语言中的概念隐喻 "道德向前移动/不道德向后移动 "相一致。在兼容区块(道德向前,不道德向后)和不兼容区块(道德向后,不道德向前)中移动操纵杆时,指导汉英双语者将词语归类为道德或不道德。结果显示了三个主要结论:首先,与向前移动操纵杆相比,当参与者的反应涉及向后移动操纵杆时,他们对不道德词语的分类速度更快。其次,与操纵杆向前移动相比,参与者在操纵杆向后移动时对道德词语的分类速度也略快。第三,总体而言,中文道德词语的分类速度快于英文道德词语。然而,尽管在第一语言中观察到的效应大小略大,但道德词语的动作相容性效应在两种语言中表现出相似的模式。总之,双语者在第一语言和第二语言中都能共同使用 "不道德就是向后移动 "这一概念隐喻,但他们在第一语言和第二语言中都不能使用 "道德就是向前移动 "这一概念隐喻。本研究提供了支持概念隐喻理论的新证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Processing
Cognitive Processing PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes innovative contributions in the multidisciplinary field of cognitive science.  Its main purpose is to stimulate research and scientific interaction through communication between specialists in different fields on topics of common interest and to promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary cognitive science. Cognitive Processing is articulated in the following sections:Cognitive DevelopmentCognitive Models of Risk and Decision MakingCognitive NeuroscienceCognitive PsychologyComputational Cognitive SciencesPhilosophy of MindNeuroimaging and Electrophysiological MethodsPsycholinguistics and Computational linguisticsQuantitative Psychology and Formal Theories in Cognitive ScienceSocial Cognition and Cognitive Science of Culture
期刊最新文献
Be kind, don't rewind: trait rumination may hinder the effects of self-compassion on health behavioral intentions after a body image threat. Analysis of the impact of different background colors in VR environments on risk preferences. Decision-making during training of a Swedish navy command and control team: a quantitative study of workload effects. Navigating space: how fine and gross motor expertise influence spatial abilities at different scales. Recalling more each time: context change effects in hypermnesia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1