诗歌与非文学隐喻中与隐喻善性相关的认知因素

IF 2.2 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Metaphor and Symbol Pub Date : 2023-03-16 DOI:10.1080/10926488.2021.2011285
J. Nick Reid, Hamad Al-Azary, A. Katz
{"title":"诗歌与非文学隐喻中与隐喻善性相关的认知因素","authors":"J. Nick Reid, Hamad Al-Azary, A. Katz","doi":"10.1080/10926488.2021.2011285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper we examine the effect of two cognitive variables, Semantic Neighborhood Density and Interpretive Diversity, in first, distinguishing between literary (poetic) and nonliterary metaphor, and second, in determining what makes for a good metaphor. Analyses of items taken from a widely used set ofmetaphor norms indicated that while literary and nonliterary metaphor did not differ in many ways, the poetic items tended to 1) contain concepts that came from a more dense semantic space, 2) contain topic and vehicles that came from equally dense semantic space, 3) suggest a greater number of possible interpretations as the topic and vehicle became more semantically dissimilar, and 4) evoke more emergent interpretations (i.e., less likely to be a characteristic of the topic or vehicle when considered separately). In addition, we found one way that the two variables were related to metaphor goodness: better metaphors were those with vehicles that came from increasingly less dense semantic space. This correlation was only reliable for literary, poetic items, presumably because these items were taken from a richer semantic environment suggesting many more alternative possibilities.","PeriodicalId":46492,"journal":{"name":"Metaphor and Symbol","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Factors Related to Metaphor Goodness in Poetic and Non-literary Metaphor\",\"authors\":\"J. Nick Reid, Hamad Al-Azary, A. Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10926488.2021.2011285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper we examine the effect of two cognitive variables, Semantic Neighborhood Density and Interpretive Diversity, in first, distinguishing between literary (poetic) and nonliterary metaphor, and second, in determining what makes for a good metaphor. Analyses of items taken from a widely used set ofmetaphor norms indicated that while literary and nonliterary metaphor did not differ in many ways, the poetic items tended to 1) contain concepts that came from a more dense semantic space, 2) contain topic and vehicles that came from equally dense semantic space, 3) suggest a greater number of possible interpretations as the topic and vehicle became more semantically dissimilar, and 4) evoke more emergent interpretations (i.e., less likely to be a characteristic of the topic or vehicle when considered separately). In addition, we found one way that the two variables were related to metaphor goodness: better metaphors were those with vehicles that came from increasingly less dense semantic space. This correlation was only reliable for literary, poetic items, presumably because these items were taken from a richer semantic environment suggesting many more alternative possibilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metaphor and Symbol\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metaphor and Symbol\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.2011285\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metaphor and Symbol","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.2011285","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中,我们研究了两个认知变量,语义邻域密度和解释多样性的影响,首先,区分文学(诗歌)和非文学隐喻,其次,决定什么是一个好的隐喻。从一组广泛使用的隐喻规范中提取的项目分析表明,虽然文学和非文学隐喻在许多方面没有区别,但诗歌项目倾向于1)包含来自更密集的语义空间的概念,2)包含来自同样密集的语义空间的主题和媒介,3)随着主题和媒介在语义上变得更加不同,暗示了更多可能的解释,4)唤起更多的紧急解释(即,单独考虑时,不太可能成为主题或载体的特征)。此外,我们还发现了这两个变量与隐喻好坏相关的一种方式:更好的隐喻是那些来自越来越不密集的语义空间的载体。这种相关性只在文学和诗歌的条目中是可靠的,大概是因为这些条目来自一个更丰富的语义环境,暗示了更多的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cognitive Factors Related to Metaphor Goodness in Poetic and Non-literary Metaphor
ABSTRACT In this paper we examine the effect of two cognitive variables, Semantic Neighborhood Density and Interpretive Diversity, in first, distinguishing between literary (poetic) and nonliterary metaphor, and second, in determining what makes for a good metaphor. Analyses of items taken from a widely used set ofmetaphor norms indicated that while literary and nonliterary metaphor did not differ in many ways, the poetic items tended to 1) contain concepts that came from a more dense semantic space, 2) contain topic and vehicles that came from equally dense semantic space, 3) suggest a greater number of possible interpretations as the topic and vehicle became more semantically dissimilar, and 4) evoke more emergent interpretations (i.e., less likely to be a characteristic of the topic or vehicle when considered separately). In addition, we found one way that the two variables were related to metaphor goodness: better metaphors were those with vehicles that came from increasingly less dense semantic space. This correlation was only reliable for literary, poetic items, presumably because these items were taken from a richer semantic environment suggesting many more alternative possibilities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Metaphor and Symbol: A Quarterly Journal is an innovative, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to the study of metaphor and other figurative devices in language (e.g., metonymy, irony) and other expressive forms (e.g., gesture and bodily actions, artworks, music, multimodal media). The journal is interested in original, empirical, and theoretical research that incorporates psychological experimental studies, linguistic and corpus linguistic studies, cross-cultural/linguistic comparisons, computational modeling, philosophical analyzes, and literary/artistic interpretations. A common theme connecting published work in the journal is the examination of the interface of figurative language and expression with cognitive, bodily, and cultural experience; hence, the journal''s international editorial board is composed of scholars and experts in the fields of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, literature, and media studies.
期刊最新文献
Metaphor signalling constructions in discourse related to the experience of depersonalization/derealization “Living with HIV” – Changes in HIV and AIDS Metaphors in South African Educational Policy Is That a Genuine Smile? Emoji-Based Sarcasm Interpretation Across the Lifespan Metaphorical Mapping and Cultural Significance in Chinese Death-Related Idiomatic Expressions Slowing Metaphor Down: Elaborating Deliberate Metaphor Theory Slowing Metaphor Down: Elaborating Deliberate Metaphor Theory , by Gerard J., Steen Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2023, xv, 355 pp., $165 (hardbound), ISBN: 9789027213853, $165 (e-Book), ISBN: 9789027249777.
×
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