本文是一篇语言学论文，汉语隐喻和明喻在分类模型中得到了理解。在隐喻和明喻的理解以及隐喻-明喻偏好问题中，恰当性起着主要作用，而非常规性。与低适应度陈述相比，高适应度陈述被理解得更快，被评为更高的可理解性，并且强烈倾向于作为隐喻形式。
CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The study of metaphor and simile is an antiquated but challenging topic. For one reason, studies related to this topic can at least date back to Aristotle, and for the other reason, the question concerning the relationship of metaphor and simile still awaits a satisfactory answer despite the fact that numerous studies have shed light on it. The earliest studies on metaphor and simile claim they are figures of speech used to decorate everyday language, and their distinction only lies in the way they are expressed, that is, simile has an explicit grammatical connection such as like while metaphor does not. In this view, metaphor is regarded as implicit simile, which means the two are equivalent in meaning. However, as scholars and researchers delve more into the study of it, nonequivalence view is put forward and psychological determinants influencing their use are repeatedly discussed. Debates over the topic at abroad and home never cease. Therefore, there are still plenty uncertainties in this field needing to be settled. This chapter presents the orientation and significance as well as the layout of the present study.
................................
1.2 Research orientation
Equivalence view of metaphor and simile is typically represented by comparison theory, while categorization theory supports nonequivalence view. The career of metaphor theory is a hybrid of the former two theories, which reveals the conventionalized process of metaphor. These theories are put forward in an attempt to reveal the comprehension mechanism of metaphor and simile. What’s more, based on these theories, some factors such as conventionality, aptness, comprehensibility and so on,which play a role in metaphor and simile comprehension, are also widely studied. Based on the facts above, this study’s goal is twofold: (1) examine the comprehension model of Chinese metaphors and similes; (2) examine how aptness and conventionality influence the comprehension of Chinese metaphors and similes, as well as the role that conventionality and aptness play in metaphor-simile preference.
Comparison theorists (Gentner 1983; Ortony 1979) hold that metaphors are understood as abbreviated similes, through a property matching process (a comparison process). Specifically, a metaphor is understood in terms of its corresponding simile, thus metaphors needing more time to comprehend than similes. In line with this claim, it has been proposed that metaphors are simply exaggerated similes (Barnden 2015). Alternatively, supporters of categorization theory (Glucksberg 2001; Glucksberg and Haught 2006a, 2006b; Glucksberg and Keysar 1990) argue that metaphors are not processed as comparisons, but as categorization statements, with the topic assigned to the metaphorical category named by the vehicle. Bowdle and Gentner (2005) put forward the career of metaphor account, aiming to integrate the two theories. It postulates that metaphor comprehension is determined by conventionality of vehicle, that is, the strength of association between the vehicle and its figurative meaning. Specifically, novel metaphors are always processed as comparisons, that is, similes. As these metaphors become conventionalized through repeated use, they tend to be processed as categorizations. This theory in essence belongs to comparison theories, holding that metaphors and similes are the same thing (Pierce and Chiappe 2008:2).
.....................................
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview
This chapter reviews comprehension models for metaphors and similes, relevant studies on factors influencing metaphor and simile comprehension and preference, as well as some key terms in the current research. Therefore, section 2.2 takes a look at the comprehension models for metaphor and simile, that is, comparison model, categorization model, and the career of metaphor. Section 2.3 defines the key terms of the current research, that is, aptness and conventionality. Then section 2.4 briefly reviews researches relevant to metaphor and simile comprehension, as well as influencing factors on metaphor and simile preference. Section 2.5 briefly summarizes the limitations of relevant experiment designs and section 2.6 is followed by a summary of the whole chapter.
语言学论文怎么写
.................................
2.2 Comprehension models for metaphors and similes
In the course of researching the relationship between metaphors and similes and how to understand them, three models are proposed by researchers to explore how metaphors and similes are comprehended and processed. They are comparison model (eg, Ortony 1979), categorization model (Glucksberg and Keyser 1990) and the career of metaphor model (Bowdle and Gentner 2005). The details of the three models are as follows.
2.2.1 Comparison model
The comparison view of metaphor comprehension proposes that metaphors are treated as abbreviated similes and comprehended through a comparison process (Miller 1979; Ortony 1979). As a result, nominal metaphors like “Some lawyers are sharks” are treated as if they were abbreviated similes (i.e. Some lawyers are like sharks). When the metaphor is regarded as a simile, the properties of the topic (some lawyers) arecompared with the properties of the vehicle (sharks) and only overlapping properties contribute to the interpretation of the given statement. However, this view of feature mapping has been criticized for several reasons (e.g., Glucksberg and Keysar 1990). The first concern is about property selection. Among the groups of common properties, not every property shared by the target and vehicle of a metaphor will necessarily consist of its interpretation, then how are the common features as interpretation identified? A second concern is about the issue of asymmetry. Although reversed order of the topic and vehicle should not influence their overlapping properties, metaphors are often unable to be reversed or else an uninterpretable meaning would be obtained (Bowdle and Gentner 2005:194).
.............................
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY .............................. 18
3.1 Overview ..................................... 18
3.2 Research questions ............................. 18
3.3 Participants ............................... 18
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................. 30
4.1 Overview ......................... 30
4.2 Results ..................................... 30
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION ............................... 49
5.1 Overview ............................... 49
5.2 Major findings ............................... 49
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Overview
In this chapter, results and analysis of the behavioral data are demonstrated and some explanations are presented to further discuss the findings. Section 4.2 describes the results for comprehension time and comprehensibility ratings of Chinese metaphors and similes, as well as the results for preference ratings over the two forms. Section 4.3 discusses the results of the present study in order to address the three key research questions: 1) What is the comprehension model of Chinese metaphors and similes? The categorization model or the career of metaphor model? 2) How do aptness and conventionality influence the comprehension of metaphors and similes? 3) What roles do the two factors play in metaphor-simile preference? Which one works as the leading factor? Finally, section 4.4 is a brief summary of this chapter.
语言学论文参考
.............................
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
5.1Major findings
The present study aimed to explore the comprehension model of metaphors and similes in the condition of Chinese with conventionality and aptness considered. Thus, three research questions were put forward: 1) What is the comprehension model of Chinese metaphors and similes? The categorization model or the career of metaphor model? 2) How do aptness and conventionality influence the comprehension of metaphors and similes? 3) What roles do the two factors play in metaphor-simile preference? Which one works as the leading factor? The major findings for these questions are as follows.
With respect to the first research question, the finding was that categorization model is more apt for Chinese metaphors and similes compared with the career of metaphor model. Supportive evidences could be found in comprehension times data. On the one hand, in line with the categorization model (Glucksberg and Haught 2006b; Haught 2013), the present study found high apt statements were comprehended significantly faster than low apt statements, regardless of grammatical form and conventionality. Besides, novel statements were comprehended as quickly as conventional statements when they were apt. On the other hand, the interaction effect between conventionality and grammatical form which is predicted by Bowdle and Gentner (2005:202) was nonsignificant, thus contrary to the career of metaphor model.
reference(omitted)