| Abstract: | 在很多不同的語言裡，隱喻概念的語言表達都支持了Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) 的隱喻理論。然而，Murphy (1996, 1997) 和 Glucksberg (2001)從心理的角度質疑隱喻理論真正的認知處理。他們認為使用語言來表達隱喻概念並不能證明人們有隱喻性的思考，尤其那些在語言上約定俗成的隱喻像成語一樣，可能已經變成詞彙了，因此在使用時，說話者並沒有認知上跨範疇的對應處理（cross-domain cognitive mappings）。然而，隱喻概念的圖像表達，藉著手勢，為隱喻概念的認知處理提供了看得到的證據 (Cienki 1998; Cienki and Müller 2008; Gibbs 2008).。本研究計畫的目的是探討在日常會話和故事敘述的語境中人們如何使用語言和手勢表達隱喻概念，而人們又如何透過語言和手勢理解隱喻概念。本計畫也要探討隱喻手勢如何證明隱喻思維是建立在人們的經驗、體驗、行為、例行活動、或文化及世界等知識。最後，本計畫要研究隱喻手勢在語境中的表達如何證明隱喻思維的動態性。本研究計畫為期三年。近年來本人已經建立了一個包括手勢分析的口語語料庫，包括日常會話和故事敘述，語料也一直持續增加。新的語料需要轉寫與檢查，而既有的龐大語料必須經由不同的分析人員一再檢查、修改與確認。因此，本計畫的第一年，將轉寫與檢查新的語料，也要檢查、修改與確認既有的敘述語料的轉寫內容和手勢眼神的轉寫分析。同時開始分析口語敘述語料，先找出所有隱喻手勢及對應的隱喻詞，再分析以下的項目：（一）隱喻詞的類別（參考 Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) 的分類）、（二）隱喻手勢的類別（參考 Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) 的分類）、（三）跨範疇的認知對應、（四）隱喻手勢所表達的語意內容、（五）隱喻手勢在語境中的動態表達、（六）隱喻概念在語言和手勢表達的共時性、及（七）隱喻手勢所表達的新/舊訊息。計畫的第二年以日常會話語料為主。繼續檢查、修改與確認語料的轉寫內容和手勢眼神的轉寫分析。同時開始分析會話語料，找出所有隱喻手勢及對應的隱喻詞，再分析以下的項目：（一）隱喻詞的類別、（二）隱喻手勢的類別、（三）跨範疇的認知對應、（四）隱喻手勢所表達的語意內容、（五）隱喻手勢在語境中的動態表達、（六）隱喻概念在語言和手勢表達的共時性、及（七）隱喻手勢所表達的新/舊訊息。根據故事敘述和日常會話的分析，第二年也開始資料的統計和議題的討論。跟本計畫相關的議題有：（一）哪些類型的隱喻概念同時表達於語言和手勢？哪些只表達於手勢？（二）隱喻手勢和對應的隱喻詞是否同時產生？（三）隱喻手勢大多表達新的還是舊的訊息？計畫的第三年除了繼續檢查、修改與確認語料的轉寫內容和手勢眼神的轉寫分析外，主要將第一年和第二年的各項分析完成計算和統計的工作。根據分析資料和統計結果，繼續探討跟本計畫相關的議題：（一）隱喻手勢如何證明隱喻思維是建立在人們的經驗、體驗、行為、例行活動、或文化及世界等知識？（二）隱喻手勢在語境中的表達如何證明隱喻思維的動態性？計畫第三年的另一個重點是透過實驗的方式來探討人們如何透過語言和手勢理解隱喻概念。首先，從第一和第二年的分析篩選四十個隱喻手勢做為實驗的材料：二十個隱喻手勢有對應的隱喻詞；二十個隱喻手勢沒有對應的隱喻詞。然後，擷取使用這些手勢的影音片段製成短片。一百名大學生，五十名女生和五十名男生，先觀看二十個包含隱喻手勢和隱喻詞的短片，再寫下隱喻手勢的意義。另一百名大學生，五十名女生和五十名男生，會觀看另外二十個只有隱喻手勢，沒有隱喻詞的短片，然後寫下隱喻手勢的意義。實驗的結果將進行分析和統計。根據分析資料和統計結果，探討以下的議題：隱喻手勢並非約定俗成，而是使用者說話時的即興表達，人們如何在有對應的隱喻詞或沒有對應的隱喻詞的語境下，理解這些即興的隱喻手勢？本計畫的研究成果希望可以讓我們更瞭解手勢、語言、語用和認知之間的複雜關係，也可以提供一個研究語言和手勢的新方向，也希望有助於建立一個能處理語言和手勢的運算系統。
Although Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 1999) embodied view of conceptual metaphors has been supported by a large body of evidence from linguistic expressions in different languages, Murphy (1996, 1997) and Glucksberg (2001) remain skeptical about the psychological reality of conceptual metaphors. They argue that using linguistic metaphors does not necessarily mean people do think metaphorically. Conventional metaphors in particular may have already been lexicalized without requiring the use of cross-domain cognitive mappings when people use them. The specific manifestation of a metaphor in the use of the hands can provide independent visible evidence of metaphorical thinking (Cienki 1998; Cienki and Müller 2008; Gibbs 2008). The aim of the present research is to investigate the production and comprehension of metaphoric gestures in Chinese discourse to understand how people conceptualize concepts in a metaphorical way and understand metaphorical ideas in their daily communication. Metaphors in gesture also provide empirical and visible evidence for the underlying embodiment of metaphorical thoughts. They further bear out the dynamic nature of metaphorical cognition. This is a three-year project that studies the production and comprehension of the linguistic-imagistic representations of conceptual metaphors in both conversational and narrative discourse. I have been establishing a spoken corpus of Chinese conversations and oral narratives with gestural analysis. New data has to be transcribed and checked; the large amount of old data also needs to be checked, revised and confirmed by different analysts. Thus, in the first year, new data will be transcribed, whereas the speech transcription and the gestural analysis in the old transcripts will be checked and revised. At the same time, all the gestured linguistic metaphors and metaphoric gestures in narrative discourse will be identified and analyzed with respect to (1) categorization of linguistic metaphors (based on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 1999) categories) (2) categorization of metaphoric gestures (based on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 1999) categories), (3) cross-domain cognitive mapping, (4) embodiment of metaphoric gestures, (5) dynamism of metaphoric gestures, (6) synchronization of conceptual metaphors in language and gesture, and (7) information state. In the second year, the focus will be on conversational data. First, checking and revising the speech transcription and the gestural analysis in the transcripts will continue. On the other hand, all the linguistic metaphors and metaphoric gestures in conversational discourse will be identified and analyzed with respect to (1) categorization of linguistic metaphors, (2) categorization of metaphoric gestures, (3) cross-domain cognitive mapping, (4) embodiment of metaphoric gestures, (5) dynamism of metaphoric gestures, (6) synchronization of conceptual metaphors in language and gesture, and (7) information state. The tabulation of all the analyses will start. Then, three research issues will be discussed: (1) What types of conceptual metaphors are expressed in both language and gesture? What types are merely expressed in gesture? (2) Concerning synchronization of speech and metaphoric gestures, does the stroke phase of a metaphoric gesture occur at the time the associated linguistic expression is uttered? (3) With regard to information state, do metaphoric gestures tend to carry new or old information? In the third year, checking and revising the transcripts will continue. Also, the large amount of data analyses finished in the first and second years will further be counted and tabulated. Then, based on the analyses and statistics, another two research issues will be discussed: (1) How do metaphoric gestures reveal the embodiment of metaphorical thoughts?(2) How do metaphoric gestures reveal the dynamic nature of metaphorical cognition? Another focus of research in the third year is to conduct an experiment to investigate how people comprehend metaphorical ideas as expressed in language and gesture. Forty metaphoric gestures from our data will be chosen. Their respective occurrences in the recordings will be extracted to make two kinds of video clips. The first kind includes twenty metaphoric gestures with corresponding linguistic metaphors; the second kind has another twenty metaphoric gestures without corresponding linguistic metaphors. One-hundred subjects from college, fifty males and fifty females, will watch the first version and then interpret the metaphoric gestures; another one-hundred subjects will watch the second version and interpret the metaphoric gestures. Then, based on the interpretations and statistics, the main issue will be discussed: Since metaphoric gestures are spontaneous and non-conventional, how much do people understand them with or without corresponding linguistic metaphors? I hope that this project can help understand the intricate relationship among gesture, language, use, and cognition. Moreover, it can provide a new aspect for the study of linguistic issues vis-à-vis gesturing in real discourse, and help formulate a computational model of gesture-speech performance. |
