政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/67832
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113392/144379 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51195738      線上人數 : 934
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67832


    題名: 言語及手勢中之隱喻表達
    The Expression of Metaphor in Speech and Gesture
    作者: 張宇彤
    Chang, Yu Tung
    貢獻者: 徐嘉慧
    Chui, Kawai
    張宇彤
    Chang, Yu Tung
    關鍵詞: 隱喻
    來源域
    目標域
    手勢
    metaphor
    source domain
    target domain
    gesture
    日期: 2013
    上傳時間: 2014-07-29 15:58:33 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本文旨在研究中文日常會話中語言及手勢之隱喻表達，並根據Lakoff和Johnson的概念隱喻理論（Conceptual Metaphor Theory），探討語言與手勢之慣常隱喻表達以及兩者的互動關係。本文共分析247筆隱喻。其中110（44.5%）筆在語言及手勢中同時傳遞同一類型之隱喻概念；另外137（55.5%）筆只藉著手勢傳達隱喻概念。
    日常會話語料中共發現九種隱喻類型，包括身體譬喻、因果譬喻、傳輸譬喻、容器譬喻、實體譬喻、虛擬移動譬喻、 空間方位譬喻、擬人譬喻以及複合譬喻。此外，根據意象圖式之概念，本研究也區分了九種來源域概念：活動、身體部位、容器、虛擬移動、力、物體、路徑、人與空間。隱喻可以用來表達繁多的目標域概念，以下八種目標域概念在語料中至少出現五次：群體、心理活動、具體活動、程度、順序、說話內容、狀態與時間。
    研究發現，實體譬喻（77.8%）及空間方位譬喻（17.4%）在日常會話中最為普遍。根據Lakoff 和 Johnson （1980c），人們對於實體之經驗提供了多種方式來表達其他抽象概念，例如我們能集合、分類、量化物體以及確立物體之情勢。Lakoff 和 Johnson亦表示，空間方位是構成某些概念（例如：高地位）之不可或缺的部分；缺乏空間方位譬喻，很難利用其他方式表達。因此，日常會話中經常使用實體譬喻及空間方位作譬喻。空間方位譬喻之來源域概念可以是空間或路徑，而其他類型之譬喻僅來自單一來源域。最常見的來源域概念為物體，而常見之目標域概念則有狀態、時間及具體活動。有關單一來源域至多元目標域之隱喻對應，來源域概念包括物體、空間、路徑、虛擬移動、活動及容器，可用以表達多個目標域。有關多元來源域至單一目標域之隱喻對應，目標域概念包括時間、心理活動、說話內容、順序及程度，可藉由多個來源域表達。
    本文亦從三方面探討語言及手勢如何共同表達隱喻概念：語言及手勢之時序、手勢之關聯詞彙、語言及手勢之語意配合，以瞭解關於語言與手勢產生之不同理論假說。Lexical Semantic Hypothesis認為手勢源自於詞項之語意內容，也主張手勢出現之時間通常先於相關詞彙，以利詞彙搜索。Interface Hypothesis則認為空間-運動訊息及語言訊息在產生手勢之過程中相互影響，因此手勢及語言會同時出現，而本研究確實發現手勢大多與相關詞彙同時出現。再者，17.4%的手勢對應片語，而不限於單詞，此結果與Lexical Semantic Hypothesis之見解相悖。最後，研究發現55.5%之隱喻僅藉由手勢表達。因此語言及手勢傳達不同的語意訊息，結果支持Interface Hypothesis之論說—手勢和語言可各自表意。上述三項結果支持Interface Hypothesis之論點。
    This thesis explores the linguistic and gestural expressions of metaphors in daily Chinese conversations. Following Lakoff and Johnson’s framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the present study aims to investigate the habitual expressions of metaphors in language and gesture and the collaboration of the two modalities in conveying metaphors. The present study examined 247 metaphoric expressions. The data includes 110 (44.5%) metaphors being conveyed concurrently by speech and gesture—the two modalities expressing the same type of metaphors—and 137 (55.5%) metaphors being conveyed in gesture exclusively.
    Nine types of metaphors were found in the daily conversations: Body-part, Causation, Conduit, Container, Entity, Fictive-motion, Orientation, Personification, and complex metaphors. Furthermore, based on the notion of image schema, nine types of source-domain concepts were recognized: ACTIVITY, BODY-PART, CONTAINER, FICTIVE-MOTION, FORCE, OBJECT, PATH, PERSON, and SPACE. A great variety of target-domain concepts were realized via metaphors; the present study focused on eight types, each occurred more than five times in the data: GROUP, MENTAL ACTIVITY, (physical) ACTIVITY, DEGREE, SEQUENCE, SPEECH CONTENT, STATE, and TIME.
    The results showed that Entity metaphor (77.8%) and Orientation metaphor (17.4%) are the most common types in daily conversation. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980c), people’s bodily experiences of physical objects provide basis for viewing other abstract concepts; for instance, we can group, categorize, quantify, and identify aspects of objects. They also suggested spatial orientations are essential parts of certain concepts (e.g., high status); without orientation metaphors, it would be difficult to find alternative ways to express the ideas. Therefore, Entity metaphor and Orientation metaphor are frequently employed in metaphoric expressions. Orientation metaphors are based on two source domains, SPACE and PATH; the other types of metaphors are all associated with a single source domain. The most common type of source domains is OBJECT, whereas the common types of target domains are STATE, TIME, and PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. With regard to the one-source-to-many-targets correspondences, the source domains of OBJECT, SPACE, PATH, FICTIVE-MOTION, ACTIVITY, and CONTAINER could be used to express numerous target-domain concepts metaphorically. As to the many-sources-to-one-target correspondences, the target-domain concepts of TIME, MENTAL ACTIVITY, SPEECH CONTENT, SEQUENCE, and DEGREE could be represented by multiple source-domain concepts.
    The collaboration of language and gesture enables us to evaluate the various hypotheses of speech-gesture production, based on the temporal relation between language and gesture, the lexical affiliates of metaphoric gestures, and the semantic coordination across the two modalities. The Lexical Semantics Hypothesis suggests that gestures are generated from the semantic of a lexical item (or a word) and that gestures tend to precede their lexical affiliates to help lexical search. The Interface Hypothesis proposes that spatio-motoric and linguistic information interact with each other during gesture production, so gestures and the related speech will occur at the same time. The present study found that gestures mostly synchronize with the associated speech. Moreover, 17.4% of metaphoric gestures are associated with grammatical phrases rather than words. This result opposes to the claim of the Lexical Semantics Hypothesis. Last, the present study found that 55.5% of metaphoric expressions are being conveyed in gesture exclusively. The result supports the argument of the Interface Hypothesis that language and gesture can covey diverse semantic contents respectively. Based on the above findings, the current study tends to support the Interface Hypothesis.
    參考文獻: Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 617-645.
    Butterworth, Brain & Hadar, U. (1989). Gesture, speech, and computational stages: A reply to McNeill. Psychological Review, 96(1): 168-174.
    Calbris, Geneviève. 2008. From left to right...: Converbal gestures and their symbolic use of space. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 27-53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Chui, Kawai. 2011. Conceptual metaphors in gesture. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3): 437-458.
    Chui, Kawai. 2013. Gesture and embodiment in Chinese discourse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 41(1): 52-63.
    Chui, Kawai & Huei-ling Lai. 2008. The NCCU corpus of spoken Chinese: Mandarin, Hakka, and Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 6(2): 119-144.
    Cienki, Alan. 1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee, & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, 3-15. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and Cognition, 189-204. California: CSLI Publications.
    Cienki, Alan. 2005. Image schemas and gesture. In Beate Hampe & Joseph E. Grady (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 421-441. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Cienki, Alan. 2008. Why study metaphor and gesture. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 5-25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Cienki, Alan. & Cornelia Müller. 2008. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 483-501. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Clausner, Timothy & William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10: 1-31.
    Davidson, Donald. 1978. What Metaphors Mean. Critical Inquiry, 5(1): 31-47.
    de Ruiter, Jan Peter. 2000. The production of gesture and speech. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 284-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino, & Susanna Cumming. 1992. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane Anne Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, 45-89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2005. Embodiment in metaphorical imagination. In Diane Pecher & Rolf A. Zwaan (eds.), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking, 65-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2008a. Metaphor and gesture: Some implications for psychology. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 291-301. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2008b. Metaphor and thought: the state of the art. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 3-13. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W., Josephine M. Bogdonvich, Jeffrey R. Sykes, & Dale J. Barr. 1997. Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 141-154.
    Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W., Paula Lenz Costa Lima, & Edson Francozo. 2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1189-1210.
    Glanberg, Arthur M. & Michael P. Kaschak. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3): 558-565.
    Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hampe, Beate. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In Beate Hampe & Joseph E. Grady (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 1-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Hauk, Olaf, Ingrid Johnsrude, & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2004. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41: 301-307.
    Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
    Johnson, Mark. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In Beate Hampe & Joseph E. Grady (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 15-33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
    Katamba, Francis & John Stonham. 2006. Morphology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kita, Sotaro and Asli Özyürekb. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1): 16-32.
    Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press.
    Krauss, Robert M., Yihsiu Chen, & Purnima Chawla. 1996. Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? In Mark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 389-450. San Diego: Academic Press.
    Krauss, Robert M., Yihsiu Chen, & Rebecca F. Gottesman. 2000. Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and Gesture, 261-283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1993. The axiological parameter in preconceptional schema. In Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Process in Language, 305-329. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980a. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philposophy, 77(8): 453-486.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980b.The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4: 195-208.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980c. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Afterwords. In Metaphors We Live By (2nd ed.), 243-274. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Landis, Richard J. & Gray G. Koch (1977). "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data". Biometrics, 33 (1): 159–174.
    Levelt, Willem. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    Lin, Chingyuan. 2003. The Metaphors and Metonymies of Body Parts in Taiwanese Southern Min. M.A. Thesis. National Chung Cheng University.
    Liu, Ya-ling. 2010. Journey Metaphor in Taiwan Mandarin Pop Songs by Indigenous Singers. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan University.
    Mandler, Jean M. 1992. How to build a baby: II. conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4): 587-604.
    McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92(3): 350-371.
    McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gesture Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    McNeill, David. 2008. Unexpected metaphors. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 155-170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    McNeill, David. & Susan D. Ducan. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141-161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Mittelberg, Irene. 2008. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 115-154. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Müller, Cornelia. 2008. What gestures reveal about nature of metaphor. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 219-245. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Murphy, Gregory. 1996. On metaphoric representations. Cognition, 60: 173-204.
    Murphy, Gregory. 1997. Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphorical representation. Cognition, 62: 99-108.
    Núñez, Rafel. 2008. A fresh look at the foundations of mathematics: Gesture and the psychological reality of conceptual metaphor. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 93-114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Santibáñez, Francisco. 2002. The object image-schema and other dependent schemas. Atlantis, 24(2): 183-201.
    Searle, John R. 1979. Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 84-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to speech. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis, 266-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Slobin, Dan I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435-444.
    Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion and change in language and perception. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 211-276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Wang, Kuo-shu. 2010. Love Metaphors in Taiwan Mandarin Lyrics since the 90s: A Metaphor Network Model Approach. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan University.
    Wilson, Margaret. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4): 625-636.
    Wilson, Nicole L. & Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. 2007. Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31: 721-731.
    Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    賴玲玉。2011。《台語流行歌詞中的愛情隱喻(1980-2010)》。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    語言學研究所
    100555001
    102
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100555001
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    500101.pdf3487KbAdobe PDF2669檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋