國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	謝一華 I-hua Sharon Hsieh
論文名稱：	台灣學生譬喻及換喻能力發展之研究 A Developmental Study of Metaphor and Metonymy in Taiwan Mandarin Speakers
指導教授：	謝國平 Tse, Kwock-Ping
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2004
畢業學年度：	92
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	143
中文關鍵詞：	譬喻、換喻
英文關鍵詞：	Metaphor, Metonymy
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：179 下載：30
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

中文摘要
我的研究主要是以心理語言學的理論來探討台灣學生的譬喻和換喻能力的發展。實驗裡的有四個組別，分別是幼稚園，國小四年級，國中，大學;比較這四個年齡層的譬喻能力之後，我們可以發現譬喻能力的發展曲線。實驗使用了兩種引導方式—A是B和A像B來討論是和像這兩種句型是否會影響到譬喻的使用。此外，我們也討論了八個具體的名詞和八個情緒形容詞。
實驗結果顯示出具體名詞加上A像B句型最能夠引發出中文的譬喻使用而情緒形容詞比較容易引出中文的換喻。在譬喻及換喻的理解上，在測試具體名詞的時候，受試者偏向以兩個物體之間的關係來做連結，較不會考慮兩個物體的外表相似程度。受試者會使用較多的譬喻來連結情緒形容詞，換喻的使用相對下就比較少用。
實驗結果發現這四個年齡層對於中文的譬喻和換喻能力的理解及使用的情形都相當的好。儘管如此，我們原本預期大學生會是四個組別中表現最好的一組，但實驗的結果顯示出國中生才是在這四個組中表現最好的一個組別，這些可能的原因都會在討論裡提出。

Abstract
My present study is based on the psycholinguistic theories to explore the developments of production and comprehension on figurative language of Taiwan Mandarin speakers. Four age groups—kindergartners, fourth graders, junior highs, and college students, are investigated with the cross-sectional comparison and the developmental curves of figurative language are observed. Two instruction types are utilized in the experiments—nominal as well as comparative instruction. On the other hand, two targets are employed—the concrete nouns and the emotion adjectives.
The results indicate that the concrete nouns along with the comparative instruction serve to be the best form to trigger Chinese metaphor while the emotion adjectives are prone to trigger the Chinese metonymy. As for the comprehension on figurative language, subjects tend to use more relational metaphors rather than attributive ones to create the mappings to the concrete nouns; when tested with the emotion adjectives, subjects tend to exploit more metaphor than metonymy to create the mapping between the target and the source.
The four age groups are fairly good at either the production or the comprehension of Chinese figurative language. Nevertheless, the junior highs rather than the college students are discovered the best performers among the four age groups in the production of figurative language.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
中文摘要 .………………………………………………………………………….....i
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….……..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ………………………………………………. v
CAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………1
 1.1 Motivation …………..…………………………………………………………...1
 1.2 Purpose of the Study .…………………………………………………………….2
1.3 Organization of the thesis ………………………………………………………..3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………...………….5
 2.1 The Semantic Theories of Metaphor …………………………………………….5
 2.2 Pragmaticians’ Views on Metaphor …………………………..………………...11
 2.3 The Psychological Explanations on Metaphor …………………...…………….12
    2.3.1 Lakoff and Johnson’s Study …………………………………..………….12
        2.3.1.1 Metaphor ……………………..……………………...…………12
      2.3.1.2 Metonymy .…………………………………….……...…………17
      2.3.1.3 Distinguishing Metaphor from Metonymy..…….…………….....20
    2.3.2 Shen’s ‘Hybrid Model' …………………………..……………………….21
2.4 Children’s Developmental in Metaphor ………………………………….…….22
    2.4.1 Levorato & Cacciari’s Study ………………………………………..……22
    2.4.2 Winner’s Categorization of Metaphor ……………………………...…….25
    2.4.3 Conceptual Domains and the Acquisition of Metaphor …………….……27
    2.4.4 Gentner’s Study ………………………………………………………..…28
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY …………………………………………30
 3.1 Subjects …………………………………………………………………...……30
 3.2 Experiment 1 ………………………………………………………………...…31
3.2.1 Materials and Design …...…………………………………...……………31
    3.2.2 Procedure ……………………………………………………...………….34
    3.2.3 Coding Procedure …………………………………………………….…..35
 3.3 Experiment 2 ……………………………………………………………….…..38
    3.3.1 Materials and Design ……...………………………..…………………….39
3.3.2 Procedure ………………………………………………………………....43
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND FINDINGS …………………………………44
4.1 Findings of Experiment 1: Production of Figurative Speech ……….………….44
4.1.1 The Development of Metaphor as Figurative Speech ………….……….45
          4.1.1.1 The Development of Metaphor as elicited by Concrete Object Targets under Different Instruction Methods …………………. 45
          4.1.1.2 Production of Metaphor as elicited by Emotion Adjectives Targets under Different Instruction Methods …………...………………49
          4.1.1.3 Summary of Metaphor Production …………….……………….52
     4.1.2 The Development of Metonymy as Figurative Speech …………………54
          4.1.2.1 Production of Metonymy as elicited by Concrete Object Targets under Different Instruction Methods……………………………55
        4.1.2.2 Production of Metonymy as elicited by Emotion Adjective
Targets under Different Instruction Methods ……………….….56
          4.1.2.3 Summary of Metonymy Production ….………………………...57
 4.2 Findings of Experiment 2: Comprehension of Figurative Speech ……………..59
4.2.1 Comprehension on Figurative Speech by Attributive v.s. Relational Mapping ………………………………………………………………..59
4.2.2 Comprehension on Figurative Speech by Metaphoric v.s. Metonymical Mapping ………………………………………………………………..62
4.2.3 Summary of Findings of Experiment 2 …………………….…………...64
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION ………………………………………….………65
5.1 Production of Figurative Speech …………………………………………….66
5.1.1 The Developmental Zenith of Metaphor Production in Junior Highs …... 66
5.1.2 Parallelism between Tenor and Vehicle in both the Nominal and Comparative Instruction …………………………………………..…......69
5.1.3 The Absence of Conventional Idioms in the Production of Figurative Speech …………………………………………………………………. .71
5.1.4 The Scantiness of Metonymy in the Production Speech …….………… ..73
 5.2 Comprehension of Figurative Speech ………………………………………….77
    5.2.1 Children's Rules of Understanding Metaphor ……………………………77
    5.2.2 The Shift to Chinese Metonymy in Understanding Metaphor …………...80
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION ………………………………….……………….84
 6.1 Summary of the Major Findings ……………………………………………… 84
6.2 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Further Studies ……….. 85
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………. 87
APPENDIX A  Production Task and Comprehension Task .…………………...94
APPENDIX B  Numbers and Percentages of Literal and Figurative Expressions ……………………………………………………… 98
APPENDIX C  Production Data of Figurative Speech for Kindergarteners, 4th graders, Junior high school students and College Students  ………………………………….……………………100
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
        Table 3.1 The Summary Table of the Coding Categorization for the Production Data ……….…………………………………….….38
Table 4.1 The Production Number of Metaphor under Experiment A and B
…...……………………………………………………………...48
        Table 4.2 The Production Number of Metaphor under Experiment C and D
                …………………………………………………………………..52
        Table 4.3 The Production Number of Metonymy under Experiment A and B ………………………………………………………………. 56
        Table 4.4 The Production Number of Metonymy under Experiment C and D ………………………………………………………………..57
Table 4.5 The Numbers and Percentages of Attributive, Relational and Nonsense Metaphors ……………………………………..…… 60
        Table 4.6 The Numbers and Percentages of Metaphoric, Metonymical and Nonsense Mappings ……………………………………………63
Figures
        Figure 4.1 The Development of Metaphor under the Concrete nouns ……47
        Figure 4.2 The Development of Metaphor under the Emotion Adjectives
………………………………………………………………....51
        Figure 4.3 The Comparison between the Developments of Attributive and Relational Metaphors …………………………………………61
        Figure 4.4 The Comparison between the Developments of the Preferences of Metaphoric and Metonymical Languages …………...……..64
                                

References
Asch, S. E., & Nerlove, H. 1960. The development of double function terms in
children: An exploratory investigation. In B. Kaplan & S. Wapner (Eds.),
Perspectives in psychological theory. New York: International University Press.
47-60.
Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In Barcelona, Antonio (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-28.
Barsalou, L. W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and Contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 21-74.
Black, R. 1979. More about metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. A. Ortony. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cacciari, C. & Levorato, M. C. 2002. The creation of new figurative expressions:
Psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Child
Language, 29, 127-150.
Cherian, V. I., Kariuki, P. W., Kibria, G. F., & Mwamwenda, T.S. 1988. Formal Operational reasoning in African university students. The Journal of Psychology, 122: 487-98.
Cicone, H., Gardener, H., & Winner E. 1981. Understanding the psychology in psychological metaphors. Child Language, 8, 213-216.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 1999. Metonymy and Conceptual integration. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 77-90.
Gardner, H. 1974. Metaphors and modalities: How children project polar adjectives
onto diverse domains. Child Development, 45, 84-91.
--------, Winner E., Bechhofer, R, & Wolf, D. 1978. The development of figurative language. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language. New York: Gardner. 1-37.
Garner, W. R. 1974. The processing of information and structure. Potomoc, MD: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D. 1977. Children’s performances on a spatial analogies task. Child
Development. 48: 1034-39.
--------. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphor? In Metaphor: problems and
perspectives, ed. D. S. Miall. Brighton, Sussex : Harvester Press.
--------. 1983. Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive
Science, 7: 155-170.
-------- & Stuart, P. 1983. Metaphor as structure mapping: What develops? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the society for research in child development.
--------. 1988. Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child
Development. 59: 47-59.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1997. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In Raymond Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen, (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 145-166.
--------. 1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 61-76.
--------. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understand what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 457-486.
Grady, J.E. 1997. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlations vs. resemblance. In Raymond Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen, (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 79-100.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Jerry Morgan and Peter Cole, eds., Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 47-58.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1994. Chinese as a metonymic language. In Matthew Chen and Ovid J. L. Tzeng (eds.) In Honor of William S-Y Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei: Pyramid. 223-252.
Keil, Frank. 1986. Conceptual domains and the acquisition of metaphor. Cognitive
Development 1: 73-96.
--------, & Batterman, N. A. 1984. A characteristic-do-defining shift in the
development of word meaning. Journal of verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
23: 221-236.
--------, & Carroll, J. J. 1980. The child’s conception of “tall”: Implications for an alternative view of semantic development. Papers and reports on child language development, 19, 365-179.
Kelly, Michael H. and Frank C. Keil. 1987. Metaphor comprehension and knowledge of semantic domains. Metaphor and symbolic Activity 2: 33-52.
Kittay, E. F. 1987. Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kogan, N. 1975. Metaphoric thinking in children: Developmental and
individual-difference aspects. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Denver.
--------. 1976. Cognitive styles in infancy and early children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal
about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson. Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynne Cameron and Graham Low.1999. Researching and applying metaphors.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, J.L. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction. MA: Blackwell.
Miller, George A. 1979. Images and models, similes and metaphors. In Metaphor
and thought, ed. A. Ortony. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Scott A., 1999. Developmental research methods. 2nd ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mwamwenda, Tuntufye S. 1999. Undergraduate and graduate students’ combinatorial
reasoning and formal operations. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 160: 503-7.
Nerlich, Brigitte, David D. Clarke. 1988. A dynamic model of semantic change.
Journal of Literary Semantics 17: 73-90.
Nerlich, B., D. Clarke & Todd, Z. 1999. Mummy, I like being a sandwich. In
Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.361-383.
Norrick, Neal R. 1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Orthony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86. 161-180.
Pearson, B. 1990. The comprehension of metaphor by preschool children. Journal of
Child Language, 17: 185-203.
Piaget, J. 1962. Plays, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Radden, Günter & Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In
Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 17-59.
Rogers, Robert. 1978. Metaphors: A psychoanalytic view. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. by A. Ortony. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Yeshayahu. 1999. Principles of metaphor interpretation and the notion of
‘domain’: A proposal for a hybrid model. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1631-53.
Sokolov, J. L., C.E. Snow (Eds.). 1994. Handbook of research in language
development using CHILDES. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsao, Tsai & Liu (曹逢甫、蔡中立、劉秀瑩). 2001. Body and Metaphor: the
primary interface of language and cognition. (身體與譬喻: 語言與認知的首要
介面). Taipei: Crane Publishers.
Ungerer F. & H. J. Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Vosniadou, Stella. 1987. Children and metaphors. Child Development, 58: 870-885.
Yygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. (E. Hartmann and G. Vakar, trans.) Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Winer, A., Cottrell E., Mott T., Cohen M., & Fournier J. 2001. Are children more
accurate than adults? Spontaneous use of metaphor by children and adults.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30,:485-496.
Winner, E. 1979. New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. Journal of Child Language, 6: 469-491.
Winner, E. 1988. The point of words: children’s understand of metaphor and irony.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文