Contextual congruency and novel metaphor integration
The goal of this paper is to further our understanding of how novel metaphor sentences are processed at a discourse level.
Previous studies have focused on contextual issues during the processing of sentences containing conventional metaphors, with the effect of
context on sentences with novel metaphors less studied. Accordingly, we determined the effects of contextual congruency on novel metaphor
sentences in short texts by conducting two on-line reading experiments. We adopted Conceptual Mapping Model in order to create sentences
with two types of novel metaphor (1) sentences with novel metaphors that follow mapping principles (considered to be comparatively less
novel) and (2) sentences with novel metaphors that do not follow mapping principles (considered to be comparatively more novel). In
Experiment 1, conventional metaphor scenarios were preceded by congruent novel metaphor sentences following mapping principles and those not
following mapping principles. In Experiment 2, conventional metaphor scenarios were preceded by incongruent novel metaphor sentences
following mapping principles and those not following mapping principles. Results showed that congruent novel metaphor sentences following
mapping principles were read faster than those not following mapping principles in conventional metaphor scenarios (Experiment 1), while
there was a marginal difference in reading times between incongruent novel metaphor sentences following and those not following mapping
principles, but not in the expected direction (Experiment 2). Our research supports previous work that shows that congruency plays a large
role in assimilating new information, and also provides further evidence for the role of mapping principles in the creation and processing
of novel metaphors.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Experiment 1: Reading congruent novel metaphor sentences in conventional metaphor paragraphs
- 2.1Method
- 2.1.1Participants
- 2.1.2Materials
- Pretest 1: An off-line source domain judgment task
- Pretest 2: An off-line mapping principles verification task
- Pretest 3: A reading task for processing novel metaphor sentences without preceding paragraphs
- 2.1.3Apparatus
- 2.1.4Procedure
- 2.1.5Results
- 2.1.6Discussion
- 3.Experiment 2: Reading incongruent novel metaphors in conventional metaphor paragraphs
- 3.1Method
- 3.1.1Participants
- 3.1.2Materials and design
- 3.1.3Apparatus
- 3.1.4Procedure
- 3.1.5Results
- 3.1.6Discussion
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (25)
Ahrens, K., & Chung, S. F.
(
2019)
Research on metaphors in Chinese. In
Chu-Ren Huang,
Zhuo Jing-Schmidt, and
Barbara Meisterernst (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Applied Chinese Linguistics. (pp. 364–378). New York and London: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ahrens, K., Chung, S.-F., & Huang, C.-R.
(
2004)
From lexical semantics to conceptual metaphors: Mapping principle verification with WordNet and SUMO. In
Ji Donghong,
Lua Kim Teng, &
Wang Hui (Eds.),
Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5) (pp. 99–106). Singapore: COLIPS.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ahrens, K., Chung, S.-F., & Huang, C.-R.
(
2003)
Conceptual metaphors: ontology-based representation and corpora driven mapping principles.
Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language (pp. 35–41). Japan: Sapporo.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ahrens, K. & Jiang, M.-H.
(
2020)
Source Domain Verification Using Corpus-based Tools.
Metaphor and Symbol. 35(1), 43–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ahrens, K., Liu, H.-L., Lee, C.-Y., Gong, S.-P., Fang, S.-Y., & Hsu, Y.-Y.
(
2007)
Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese.
Brain and Language, 100(2), 163–171.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burgers, C.
(
2016)
Conceptualizing Change in Communication Through Metaphor.
Journal of Communication, 661: 250–265.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K.
(
2020)
Change in metaphorical framing over time: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014).
Applied Linguistics, 41(2): 260–279.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chung, S.-F., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
(
2005)
Source domains as concept domains in metaphorical expressions.
International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10(4), 553–570.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.
(
1990)
Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography.
Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
CKIP (Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group)
(
1995)
Corpus-Based Frequency Count of Words in Journal Chinese. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glucksberg, S., Brown, M., & McGlone, M. S.
(
1993)
Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension.
Memory & Cognition, 211, 711–719.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D.
(
1997)
Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.
Journal of Memory and Language, 361, 50–67.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gong, S.-P., & Ahrens, K.
(
2007)
Processing conceptual metaphors in on-going discourse.
Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 313–330.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gong, S.-P., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
(
2008)
Chinese Word Sketch and Mapping Principles: A Corpus-Based Study of Conceptual Metaphors Using the BUILDING Source Domain.
International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages. 21(2): 3–17.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, C.-R.
(
1995)
The morpho-lexical meaning of mutual information: A corpus-based approach towards a definition of Mandarin words. Presented at the
1995 Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting
. New Orleans, LA.
Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S.
(
2000)
Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 576–593.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2019)
Ten Lectures on Figurative Meaning-Making: The Role of Body and Context. Brill.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2017)
Levels of metaphor.
Cognitive linguistics, 28(2), 321–347.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1993)
The contemporary theory of metaphor. In
A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor and thought (p. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(
1980)
Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nayak, N. P., & Gibbs, R. W.
(
1990)
Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 19(3), 315–330.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sproat, R., Shih, C., Gale, W., & Chang, N.
(
1996)
A stochastic finite-state word-segmentation algorithm for Chinese.
Computational Linguistics, 22(3), 377–404.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thibodeau, P., & Durgin, F. H.
(
2008)
Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors.
Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 521–540.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wen, X., & Yang, K.
(
2016)
Systematicity and Complexity of IDEA Metaphors in Chinese.
Metaphor and Symbol, 31(4), 230–249.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Ahrens, Kathleen, Christian Burgers & Yin Zhong
2024.
Making the Unseen Seen: The Role of Signaling and Novelty in Rating Metaphors.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 53:3
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Cheng, Lulu, Yingming Guan, Ting Zhang, Linlin Zhan, Yanqin Liu, Peng Wang, Shanshan Yu & Yule Peng
2024.
An empirical study on the development of metaphorical comprehension of Chinese children.
Frontiers in Psychology 14
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Zhong, Yin, Kathleen Ahrens & Chu-Ren Huang
2024.
Novel metaphor and embodiment: comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors.
Linguistics Vanguard 9:1
► pp. 245 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.