Reconstructing online metaphor processing and its optimal principles

Authors

  • Meixia Li Beijing International Studies University
  • Jiaxiang Han Renmin University of China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/jal.v6i2.8981

Keywords:

metaphor, online processing, meaning processing, discourse comprehension, reconstruction, optimal principles

Abstract

Based on the review of previous research, this article, taking Conceptual Blending Theory and the Schema Theory as theoretical rationale, attempts to reconstruct the procedure of online metaphor processing in discourse comprehension and to tease out the factors influencing the metaphor processing. This is followed by the reporting of an experiment in which 36 Chinese university students participate. The results from data analysis show that this reconstruction is feasible. It is proposed that there are six optimal principles involved in online metaphor processing in discourse comprehension: the principle of economy, the principle of recursion, the principle of the target domain, the principle of the source domain, the principle of the context and the principle of the culture of the mother tongue.

Author Biographies

Meixia Li, Beijing International Studies University

Meixia Li received her PhD in linguistics from Beijing Normal University, China and is currently professor in Beijing International Studies University, China. Her research interests include text linguistics, cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics and corpus linguistics. She has published six books and sixty academic papers. Her most recent book-length publication is Language Formulae and Language in Use vol. 2 (2013, World Publication Press, China).

Jiaxiang Han, Renmin University of China

Jiaxiang Han received his MA Degree in linguistics from Beijing International Studies University, China in 2008 and currently works as an English teacher in the High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China (RDFZ). His research interests include psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics and foreign language teaching methodology. He has published several academic papers.

References

Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bortfeld, H. and McGlone, M. S. (2001) The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16 (1–2): 75–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1601&2_6

Chateris-Black, J. (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612

Clark, P., Harrison, P. and Thompson, J. (2003) A knowledge-driven approach to text meaning processing. Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning 9: 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1119239.1119240

Coulson, S. and Oakley, T. (2000) Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3/4): 175–196.

Coulson, S. (2001) Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511551352

Fauconnier, G. (1994) Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582

Fauconnier, G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2000) Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3-4): 283–304.

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. (2002) Metaphor processing, psychology of. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Nature Publishing Group.

Gentner, D. and Clement, C. (1988) Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. Bower (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 307–358. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Gibbs, R. W. and Tendahl, M. (2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language 21 (3): 379–403. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00283.x

Gibbs, R. W. and Tendahl, M. (2011) Coupling of metaphoric cognition and communication: A reply to Deirdre Wilson. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (4): 601–609. http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/iprg.2011.027

Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S. and Manfredi, D. (1997) Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36 (1): 50–67. http://dx.doi. org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2479 Goatly, A. (2007) Washing the Brain – Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. and Trabasso, T. (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101 (3): 371–395. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. (1981) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic finding. Psychological Review 88 (5): 375–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375

Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M. and Castry, A. (2001) The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16 (1&2): 109–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1601&2_8

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008) A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 84–106. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, Raymond. W. (2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (11): 1823–1864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001

Tyler, A. and Takahashi, H. (2011) Metaphors and metonymies. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 597–621. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Wilson, D. (2011) Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 177–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ iprg.2011.009

Yu, N. (1995) Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2): 59–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327868ms1002_1

Yu, N. (2000) Figurative uses of finger and palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol 15 (3): 159–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1503_3

Yu, N. (2003) Chinese metaphors of thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2/3): 141–165.

Published

2015-09-14

How to Cite

Li, M., & Han, J. (2015). Reconstructing online metaphor processing and its optimal principles. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 6(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1558/jal.v6i2.8981

Issue

Section

Articles