Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 概念相似性與抽象性對名詞性隱喻處理的影響
The impact of conceptual similarity and abstractness on the processing of nominal metaphors作者 林茜羽
Lin, Chien-Yu貢獻者 賴瑶鍈
Yao, Ying-Lai
林茜羽
Lin, Chien-Yu關鍵詞 名詞性隱喻
隱喻處理
名詞概念抽象性
概念相似性
語意/語用處理
nominal metaphors
metaphor processing
abstractness
conceptual similarity
semantic-pragmatic processing日期 2023 上傳時間 2-Jan-2024 15:38:48 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討華語名詞隱喻(nominal metaphor)的理解是否受到主體 (target)和載體(vehicle)之間的概念相似性(conceptual similarity)與抽象性 (abstractness)的影響。過去研究發現，新穎隱喻(novel metaphor)較字面意語句 (literal sentences)難理解，不過當主體(目標域)為抽象概念時，透過概念映射， 閱讀者能較快達到隱喻解讀。以往研究主要關注主體的抽象性，目前對於載體的抽 象性、以及主體和載體之間的概念相似程度是否影響隱喻理解仍待釐清。針對上述 研究問題，研究者假設隱喻理解同時受到(1)主體和載體各自的抽象性(抽象 vs. 具體)、及(2)主體和載體之間概念相似程度的影響，結合結構映射(structural mapping)和概念隱喻理論(conceptual metaphor theory)，提出包含要素(1)和(2)的隱喻處理綜合模型，結合理論分析及實驗方法進行驗證。 本研究包含三項前測問卷以挑選檢測實驗材料、和一項自主步調閱讀主實驗來 探究華語母語者的隱喻理解。研究者以前測一(名詞抽象程度評分問卷)確認主體 和載體名詞的抽象性，前測二(隱喻句新穎程度評分問卷)確立刺激材料皆屬新穎 隱喻句;並以前測三(相似性程度評分問卷)量測主體及載體之間的概念相似程度。 主實驗採三因子(主體×載體×相似性程度)受試者內實驗設計，以自主步調閱讀 任務(self-paced reading task)檢視主體與載體的四種名詞抽象性組合(Abs-Abs, Abs-Con, Con-Abs, Abs-Con)、及兩者間不同概念相似程度(高 vs. 低)，如何影響隱喻理解。 實驗的閱讀理解判斷(隱喻句好不好理解)、及其反應時間的結果顯示:(1) 主體和載體的概念相似程度越高，隱喻句越好理解，且當兩者相似程度高時，具體 載體較抽象載體好理解，其反應時間亦較快;(2)在納入主體和載體間相似程度為 考量下，具體主體的理解判斷反應時間比抽象主體快，且主體和載體兩者的抽象性 有顯著的交互作用。研究結果闡釋了主體和載體間的相似程度為隱喻理解的關鍵要 因，更闡明了載體的角色，支持研究者提出的隱喻處理綜合模型。此研究整合理論 及實證，對名詞性新穎隱喻的理解歷程提供更完整的說明。
This study examines how the conceptual similarity between the target and vehicle as well as their respective abstractness affect the comprehension of nominal metaphors. Previous studies have reported that novel metaphors are more challenging to comprehend than literal sentences; also, metaphors with an abstract target facilitated the metaphorical reading through conceptual mapping with the vehicle. Although the abstractness of the target and the similarity of the target-vehicle noun pairs affect novel metaphor comprehension of novel metaphors, studies have yet to clarify the concurrent impact with respect to (1) the abstractness of the vehicle in addition to the target, and (2) the degree to which the target and vehicle share an underlying conceptual structure. To address these issues, we considered previous theoretical accounts of metaphor and derived integrative processing models of novel nominal metaphors accordingly, tested in a series of experiments. Three pilot studies were conducted to control the abstractness of the target and the vehicle nouns, the novelty of the metaphorical expression, and the conceptual similarity between the target-vehicle pairs. We then carried out a self-paced reading experiment, crossing Target (abstract/concrete) × Vehicle (abstract/concrete) × Similarity (high/low), to examine how different combinations affected metaphor comprehension. Results of the comprehensibility judgments task and its response time (RT) showed that: (1) higher target-vehicle conceptual similarity facilitated metaphor comprehension. In particular, for metaphors with high target-vehicle similarity (regardless of their respective abstractness), concrete vehicles enhanced comprehensibility with faster RT as compared to abstract vehicles. (2) On top of conceptual similarity, concrete targets elicited faster RT than abstract targets, along with a significant interaction between target and vehicle abstractness. The findings show that the target-vehicle conceptual similarity and the vehicle abstractness, in addition to the target, modulated metaphor comprehension, supporting our integrated model. By integrating theoretical analyses and experimentation, this thesis provides a more comprehensive understanding of novel metaphor comprehension.參考文獻 中文文獻 安可思 (2009)。概念隱喻。語言與認知。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），國立臺灣大學出版中心（頁55-82） 呂緯青(2012)。論對外漢語跨文化隱喻教學。語文教學研究，9(2)，59-76。 陳明蕾、王學誠、柯華葳 (2009)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證: 以潛在語意分析技術為基礎。Chinese Journal of Psychology，51(4)，415-435。 蕭惠貞、梁安琪（2018）。提升隱喻意識對二語詞彙學習和記憶存留之探究。Chinese as a Second Language Research，vol. 7，no. 1，141-170. 英文文獻 Al-Azary, H., & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & cognition, 45(2), 296-307. Al-Azary, H. (2018). Semantic processing of nominal metaphor: Figurative abstraction and embodied simulation (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)). Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research, 1160, 69-81. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72 Black, M. (1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica, 431-457. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al.’s (1988) metaphor norms. Behavior research methods, 48(1), 330-340. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. R., & Hernández, L. P. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 113, 23. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial intelligence, 41(1), 1-63. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological review, 97(1), 3. Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding Metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175582 Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse processes, 48(8), 529-562. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(2), 92-96. Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-938. Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360-378. Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child development, 47-59. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of memory and language, 37(3), 331-355. Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space→ time metaphors. Language and cognitive processes, 17(5), 537-565. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity in language, thought and perception (pp. 111-147). Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109-128. Gong, S. P. (2020). The acquisition of conceptual metaphors in Mandarin Chinese: The effect of enhanced metaphor awareness. Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA, 55(1), 24-53. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill. Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. University of California, Berkeley. Harris, R. J., Friel, B. M., & Mickelson, N. R. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete-and abstract-tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(6), 863-879. Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological bulletin, 144(6), 641. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. Ikuta, M., & Miwa, K. (2021). Structure Mapping in Second-Language Metaphor Processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 288-310. Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 14(5), 473-487. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 434-446. Jameson, J. T. (2009). Explanation and structure-mapping in theory-based categorization (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(4), 191-214. Kövecses, Z. (2010b). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics,21(4),663–697. Katz, A. N. (1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: Referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences. Journal of Memory and language, 28(4), 486-499. Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7(2), 257-266. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive science, 25(2), 173-202. Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain research, 1284, 145-155. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486. Lee, W., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Generalized linear mixed-effects modeling programs in R for binary outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(5), 824-828. Liao, X. (2018). The Application of Cognitive Linguistic Theories to English-Chinese Translation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 8(3), 61-69 Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. Metaphor and thought, 2, 2-25. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure Mapping in the Comparison Process. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501–538. Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86(3), 161. Reilly, M., & Desai, R. H. (2017). Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words. Cognition, 169, 46-53. Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., Pissani, L., & Patalas, I. (2021). A metaphor is not like a simile: Reading-time evidence for distinct interpretations for negated tropes. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(2), 85–98. Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Motoyama, H., Itoh, H., Kawabata, Y., & Abe, J. I. (2012). Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study. Brain and Language, 121(3), 254-260. Searle, J. R. (1979). What is an intentional state? Mind, 88(349), 74-92. Sternberg, R. J., & Nigro, G. (1983). Interaction and analogy in the comprehension and appreciation of metaphors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 35(1), 17-38. Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., & Stewart, R. V. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain and Language, 80(3), 488-509. Torreano, L. A., Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (2005). When dogs can fly: Level of abstraction as a cue to metaphorical use of verbs. Metaphor and symbol, 20(4), 259-274. Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 247, 261. Veale, T. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy: The cognitive trump-Cards of linguistic humour. In A paper presented at the International Linguistic Cognitive Conference, La Rioja. ms available at http://afflatus. ucd. ie/papers/iclc2003. pdf. Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 583. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 529–541. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure‐mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive science, 35(8), 1456-1488. Mihalicek, V., & Wilson, C.M. (2011). Language files: materials for an introduction to language and linguistics. Xu, X. (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1622-1636. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
109161005資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109161005 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴瑶鍈 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yao, Ying-Lai en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林茜羽 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Chien-Yu en_US dc.creator (作者) 林茜羽 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Chien-Yu en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Jan-2024 15:38:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Jan-2024 15:38:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Jan-2024 15:38:48 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109161005 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/149070 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學碩博士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109161005 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討華語名詞隱喻(nominal metaphor)的理解是否受到主體 (target)和載體(vehicle)之間的概念相似性(conceptual similarity)與抽象性 (abstractness)的影響。過去研究發現，新穎隱喻(novel metaphor)較字面意語句 (literal sentences)難理解，不過當主體(目標域)為抽象概念時，透過概念映射， 閱讀者能較快達到隱喻解讀。以往研究主要關注主體的抽象性，目前對於載體的抽 象性、以及主體和載體之間的概念相似程度是否影響隱喻理解仍待釐清。針對上述 研究問題，研究者假設隱喻理解同時受到(1)主體和載體各自的抽象性(抽象 vs. 具體)、及(2)主體和載體之間概念相似程度的影響，結合結構映射(structural mapping)和概念隱喻理論(conceptual metaphor theory)，提出包含要素(1)和(2)的隱喻處理綜合模型，結合理論分析及實驗方法進行驗證。 本研究包含三項前測問卷以挑選檢測實驗材料、和一項自主步調閱讀主實驗來 探究華語母語者的隱喻理解。研究者以前測一(名詞抽象程度評分問卷)確認主體 和載體名詞的抽象性，前測二(隱喻句新穎程度評分問卷)確立刺激材料皆屬新穎 隱喻句;並以前測三(相似性程度評分問卷)量測主體及載體之間的概念相似程度。 主實驗採三因子(主體×載體×相似性程度)受試者內實驗設計，以自主步調閱讀 任務(self-paced reading task)檢視主體與載體的四種名詞抽象性組合(Abs-Abs, Abs-Con, Con-Abs, Abs-Con)、及兩者間不同概念相似程度(高 vs. 低)，如何影響隱喻理解。 實驗的閱讀理解判斷(隱喻句好不好理解)、及其反應時間的結果顯示:(1) 主體和載體的概念相似程度越高，隱喻句越好理解，且當兩者相似程度高時，具體 載體較抽象載體好理解，其反應時間亦較快;(2)在納入主體和載體間相似程度為 考量下，具體主體的理解判斷反應時間比抽象主體快，且主體和載體兩者的抽象性 有顯著的交互作用。研究結果闡釋了主體和載體間的相似程度為隱喻理解的關鍵要 因，更闡明了載體的角色，支持研究者提出的隱喻處理綜合模型。此研究整合理論 及實證，對名詞性新穎隱喻的理解歷程提供更完整的說明。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examines how the conceptual similarity between the target and vehicle as well as their respective abstractness affect the comprehension of nominal metaphors. Previous studies have reported that novel metaphors are more challenging to comprehend than literal sentences; also, metaphors with an abstract target facilitated the metaphorical reading through conceptual mapping with the vehicle. Although the abstractness of the target and the similarity of the target-vehicle noun pairs affect novel metaphor comprehension of novel metaphors, studies have yet to clarify the concurrent impact with respect to (1) the abstractness of the vehicle in addition to the target, and (2) the degree to which the target and vehicle share an underlying conceptual structure. To address these issues, we considered previous theoretical accounts of metaphor and derived integrative processing models of novel nominal metaphors accordingly, tested in a series of experiments. Three pilot studies were conducted to control the abstractness of the target and the vehicle nouns, the novelty of the metaphorical expression, and the conceptual similarity between the target-vehicle pairs. We then carried out a self-paced reading experiment, crossing Target (abstract/concrete) × Vehicle (abstract/concrete) × Similarity (high/low), to examine how different combinations affected metaphor comprehension. Results of the comprehensibility judgments task and its response time (RT) showed that: (1) higher target-vehicle conceptual similarity facilitated metaphor comprehension. In particular, for metaphors with high target-vehicle similarity (regardless of their respective abstractness), concrete vehicles enhanced comprehensibility with faster RT as compared to abstract vehicles. (2) On top of conceptual similarity, concrete targets elicited faster RT than abstract targets, along with a significant interaction between target and vehicle abstractness. The findings show that the target-vehicle conceptual similarity and the vehicle abstractness, in addition to the target, modulated metaphor comprehension, supporting our integrated model. By integrating theoretical analyses and experimentation, this thesis provides a more comprehensive understanding of novel metaphor comprehension. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究背景與動機 1 第二節、研究目的 3 第二章、文獻探討 4 第一節、隱喻的定義與基本概念 4 第二節、類比理論及其對應的隱喻處理模型 6 第三節、範疇化理論及其對應的隱喻處理模型 7 第四節、結構映射理論及其對應的隱喻處理模型 11 第五節、概念隱喻理論 14 第三章、研究設計 17 第一節、研究問題 17 第二節、研究假設與研究預期 19 第四章、前測與主實驗 25 第一節、實驗材料與設計 25 第二節、前測實驗 26 一、實驗材料之詞頻檢查 26 二、前測一：華語名詞抽象化程度評分 27 （一）實驗參與者 27 （二）實驗材料 28 （三）實驗程序 29 （四）實驗分析及結果 30 三、前測二：隱喻新穎程度評分 31 （一）實驗參與者 32 （二）實驗材料 32 （三）實驗程序 33 （四）實驗分析及結果 35 四、前測三：中文句之名詞詞組的概念結構相似性程度評分 38 （一）實驗參與者 38 （二）實驗材料 38 （三）實驗程序 39 （四）實驗分析及結果 40 第三節、主實驗：自主步調閱讀任務（SELF-PACED READING） 43 一、研究方法 43 （一）實驗參與者 43 （二）實驗材料 43 （三）實驗程序 45 （四）實驗分析 46 二、研究結果 49 三、研究結果討論 57 第五章、綜合討論與建議 62 第一節、實驗結果綜合討論 62 第二節、華語教學建議 65 第三節、研究限制與建議 68 參考文獻 70 附錄：主實驗之實驗材料 （範例）74 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3201396 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109161005 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 名詞性隱喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻處理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 名詞概念抽象性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概念相似性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意/語用處理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) nominal metaphors en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) metaphor processing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) abstractness en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) conceptual similarity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) semantic-pragmatic processing en_US dc.title (題名) 概念相似性與抽象性對名詞性隱喻處理的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The impact of conceptual similarity and abstractness on the processing of nominal metaphors en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻 安可思 (2009)。概念隱喻。語言與認知。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），國立臺灣大學出版中心（頁55-82） 呂緯青(2012)。論對外漢語跨文化隱喻教學。語文教學研究，9(2)，59-76。 陳明蕾、王學誠、柯華葳 (2009)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證: 以潛在語意分析技術為基礎。Chinese Journal of Psychology，51(4)，415-435。 蕭惠貞、梁安琪（2018）。提升隱喻意識對二語詞彙學習和記憶存留之探究。Chinese as a Second Language Research，vol. 7，no. 1，141-170. 英文文獻 Al-Azary, H., & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & cognition, 45(2), 296-307. Al-Azary, H. (2018). Semantic processing of nominal metaphor: Figurative abstraction and embodied simulation (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)). Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research, 1160, 69-81. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72 Black, M. (1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica, 431-457. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al.’s (1988) metaphor norms. Behavior research methods, 48(1), 330-340. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. R., & Hernández, L. P. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 113, 23. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial intelligence, 41(1), 1-63. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological review, 97(1), 3. Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding Metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175582 Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse processes, 48(8), 529-562. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(2), 92-96. Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-938. Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360-378. Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child development, 47-59. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of memory and language, 37(3), 331-355. Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space→ time metaphors. Language and cognitive processes, 17(5), 537-565. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity in language, thought and perception (pp. 111-147). Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109-128. Gong, S. P. (2020). The acquisition of conceptual metaphors in Mandarin Chinese: The effect of enhanced metaphor awareness. Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA, 55(1), 24-53. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill. Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. University of California, Berkeley. Harris, R. J., Friel, B. M., & Mickelson, N. R. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete-and abstract-tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(6), 863-879. Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological bulletin, 144(6), 641. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. Ikuta, M., & Miwa, K. (2021). Structure Mapping in Second-Language Metaphor Processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 288-310. Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 14(5), 473-487. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 434-446. Jameson, J. T. (2009). Explanation and structure-mapping in theory-based categorization (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(4), 191-214. Kövecses, Z. (2010b). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics,21(4),663–697. Katz, A. N. (1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: Referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences. Journal of Memory and language, 28(4), 486-499. Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7(2), 257-266. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive science, 25(2), 173-202. Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain research, 1284, 145-155. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486. Lee, W., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Generalized linear mixed-effects modeling programs in R for binary outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(5), 824-828. Liao, X. (2018). The Application of Cognitive Linguistic Theories to English-Chinese Translation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 8(3), 61-69 Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. Metaphor and thought, 2, 2-25. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure Mapping in the Comparison Process. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501–538. Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86(3), 161. Reilly, M., & Desai, R. H. (2017). Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words. Cognition, 169, 46-53. Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., Pissani, L., & Patalas, I. (2021). A metaphor is not like a simile: Reading-time evidence for distinct interpretations for negated tropes. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(2), 85–98. Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Motoyama, H., Itoh, H., Kawabata, Y., & Abe, J. I. (2012). Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study. Brain and Language, 121(3), 254-260. Searle, J. R. (1979). What is an intentional state? Mind, 88(349), 74-92. Sternberg, R. J., & Nigro, G. (1983). Interaction and analogy in the comprehension and appreciation of metaphors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 35(1), 17-38. Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., & Stewart, R. V. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain and Language, 80(3), 488-509. Torreano, L. A., Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (2005). When dogs can fly: Level of abstraction as a cue to metaphorical use of verbs. Metaphor and symbol, 20(4), 259-274. Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 247, 261. Veale, T. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy: The cognitive trump-Cards of linguistic humour. In A paper presented at the International Linguistic Cognitive Conference, La Rioja. ms available at http://afflatus. ucd. ie/papers/iclc2003. pdf. Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 583. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 529–541. Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure‐mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive science, 35(8), 1456-1488. Mihalicek, V., & Wilson, C.M. (2011). Language files: materials for an introduction to language and linguistics. Xu, X. (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1622-1636. zh_TW
