臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文目的在探討中文的隱喻代詞和字面意義代詞裡，我們試著找出隱喻意義較突顯的代詞和字面意義較突顯的代詞在反應時間上，是否在理解上有顯著性的差異。
在本論文裡，共有52個隱喻代詞。每個隱喻代詞都以句子方式呈現，且每個隱喻代詞皆放入兩種語境當中。隱喻代詞可以分為兩種：一個是字面意義較突顯的代詞(例：麵包)；另一個是隱喻意義較突顯的代詞(如：母老虎)。在第一個實驗中，受試者在閱讀隱喻意義較突顯的代詞時，會讀到偏向字面語意的語境或是偏向隱喻語意的語境。閱讀語境完畢後，受試者會閱讀包含隱喻代詞的目標語句，然後必須判斷接著出現的實驗目標句是否與先前語境合適。受試者的反應時間和合適判斷率皆會被記錄。第二個實驗，是閱讀字面語意較突顯的代詞，同樣搭配兩個語境，受試者必須去評斷目標句是否合適接在先前的語境後面。此兩個實驗流程皆相同。
實驗一的結果顯示，受試者在閱讀隱喻意義較突顯的代詞時，在偏向隱喻語意的語境下，反應時間會明顯的比在偏向字面意義的語境下來的快速許多。同樣地，實驗二結果顯示，閱讀字面意義較突顯的代詞時，在偏向字面語意的語境下，會明顯的比在偏向隱喻語意的語境所花費的時間還要短。這個結果證明，隱喻代詞的理解不會比字面意義代詞來的慢。更確切地說，如果代詞的隱喻意義是較突顯性的，其隱喻意義的反應時間會比其字面意義來的快。因此，本論文的實驗結果符合Giora所提出的顯性程度的假設 (The Graded Salient Hypothesis)。

The goal of this thesis is to look at literal and metaphorical anaphors in Mandarin Chinese and to figure out whether the metaphorically salient anaphors and literally salient anaphors are processed differently.
In this thesis, 52 anaphoric metaphors followed by sentences with two types of contexts are created: one is the sentence with literally salient anaphors (e.g., miàn bāo 麵包 ‘bread’), the other is the sentence with metaphorically salient anaphors (e.g., mǔ lǎo hǔ 母老虎 ‘female tiger’). In Experiment 1, the metaphorically salient anaphors were read in two contexts: either literally biased contexts or metaphorically biased contexts. After reading the contexts, the participants were instructed to read the terminal target sentences, and then decided whether or not the target sentences were appropriate to the previous paragraphs. The reading time of the target sentences and appropriateness scores were measured. In Experiment 2, the literally salient anaphors were read in two contexts and then the participants had to judge the target sentences to be appropriate to the previous paragraph. The process is identical to Experiment 1.
The results of Experiments 1 show that metaphorically salient anaphors in appropriate contexts are read significantly faster than in inappropriate contexts. Likewise, the results of Experiment 2 show that the reading time of literally salient anaphors in appropriate contexts is significantly shorter than those in inappropriate contexts. This study suggests that anaphors involving metaphorical meanings are not necessary to be processed more slowly than the ones involvoing literal meanings. Indeed, if the metaphorical meanings are salient, they are processed faster than the literal meanings. Our results support The Graded Salient Hypothesis.

Abstract vi
摘要 vii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Rationale of this thesis 3
1.1.1 The Research Questions 4
1.2 The significance of this study 4
Chapter 2 Background 5
2.1 What is Metaphor? 5
2.1.1 The Meaning of Metaphor in Ancient Time 6
2.1.2 The Meaning of Metaphor in Recent Centuries 7
2.1.3 Metaphors in Chinese 9
2.2 Studies on the Processing of Metaphors 12
2.2.1 Effect of Context 13
2.2.2 Effect of Salience 20
2.3 Anaphoric Metaphors 24
2.3.1 Studies on the Processing of Anaphoric Metaphors 26
2.4 Limitation of Previous Studies and Goal of the Study 29
Chapter 3 Experiment 1: An On-line Appropriateness Judgment Task on Reading Salient Metaphors 31
3.1 Method 31
3.1.1 Participants 31
3.1.2 Materials and Design 31
3.1.3 Procedure 38
3.2 The Results of Experiment 1 39
3.3 Summary 40
Chapter 4 Experiment 2: An On-line Appropriateness Judgment Task on Reading Literal Saliences 42
4.1 Method 42
4.1.1 Participants 42
4.1.2 Materials and Design 42
4.1.3 Procedure 45
4.2 The Results of Experiment 2 46
4.3 Summary 47
Chapter 5 General Discussion and Conclusion 49
5.1 Discussion on the Results of the Experiments 49
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study 52
5.3 Conclusion 52
5.4 Implication of this Study 53
References 54
Appendix 1 114 Metaphors from Hsu (2012) 61
Appendix 2 The Google Survey in the Second Pretest 63
Appendix 3 Result of Salient Metaphors from Google Survey in Experiment 1 64
Appendix 4 Result of Literal Saliences from Google Survey in Experiment 2 65
Appendix 5 30 Salient Metaphors and 30 Literal Saliences after the Pretest 2 66
Appendix 6 The Contexts and Target Sentences of Materials of Salient Metaphors 67
Appendix 7 The Contexts and Target Sentences of Materials of Literal Saliences 75
Appendix 8 Materials of Fillers 83
Appendix 9 The Rank in Google Survey 88
Appendix 10 The Materials of the Experiment 1 in Chinese LSA 89
Appendix 12 The Materials of the Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 108
Appendix 13 The Instruction of the Experiment 109

Ahrens, K. (1999). Conceptual metaphors: from mapping principles to knowledge
representation. Unpublished Manuscript.
Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load
hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765.
Almor, A., Arunachalam, S., &; Strickland, B. (2007). When the creampuff beat the
boxer: working memory, cost, and function in reading metaphoric reference.
Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 169-193.
Aristotle, (1965). Poetics. Blackwell: Oxford.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Blasko, G. D., &; Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on
metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition 19(2), 295-308.
Bowdle, B., &; Gentner, D. (1995). The career of metaphor. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Psychonomics Society in Los Angeles, CA.
Breal, M. (1899). Essai de Semantique. Parise: Librarie Hachette.
Budiu, R., &; Anderson, J. R. (2002). Comprehending anaphoric metaphors. Memory
and Cognition, 30, 158–165.
Clark, H. H., &; Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A
study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning &; Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., &; Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent
information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.
Fauconnier, G., &; Turner, M., (2003). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and
the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gernsbacher, M. A., &; Robertson, R. R.W. (1995). Reading skill and suppression
revisited. Psychological Science 6, 165-169.
Gerrig, R. J. (1989). The time course of sense creation. Memory &; Cognition, 17,
194–207.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms
in conversation. Memory &; Cognition, 8, 449–456.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 56–66.
Gildea, P., &; Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 57-590.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience
hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative
language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.
Giora, R., &; Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14,
241–257.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language.
NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Glidea, P., &; Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding literal speech: Can
people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning &; Verbal Behavior, 21, 85-98.
Goldvarg, Y., &; Glucksberg, S. (1998). Conceptual combinations: The role of
similarity. Metaphor &; Symbol, 13, 243-255.
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., &; Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the
centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 311–348.
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm.
Perception and Psychophysics 28, 267-283.
Harris, R. J. (1976). Comprension of metaphor: A test of a two stage processing
model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 321-324.
He, G. (2011). A comparative study of color metaphors in English and Chinese.
Theory &; Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1804-1808.
Hogaboam, T. W., &; Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence
comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 265-274.
Holland, D. (1982). All is metaphor: conventional metaphors in thought and language.
Reviews in Anthropology 9, 287–297.
Hu, Z. L. (2004). Metaphor and Cognition. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Inhoff, A. W., &; Lima, S. D., &; Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor
comprehension in reading. Memory &; Cognition, 12, 558-567.
Janus, R., &; Bever, T. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of
the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 473-487.
Keenan, J. (1978). Inferring causal connections in prose comprehension. Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association Convention.
Kemper, S. (1981). Comprehension and the interpretation of proverbs. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 179-198.
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical
interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 375–385.
Keysar, B. (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations.
Discourse Processes, 18, 247-269.
Kintsch, W., &; van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Knowles, M., &; Moon, R. (2006). Introducing Metaphor. New York: Routledge.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on
image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1, 39–74.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.),
Metaphor and Thought, seconded (pp.202-251). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think? Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., &; Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., &; Johnson, M. (1998). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and
Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Perseus.
Lakoff, G., &; Kövecses, Z. (1987). The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in
American English. In Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (eds.), 195-221.
Lakoff, G., &; Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic
Metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lemaire, B., &; Bianco, M. (2003). Contextual Effects on Metaphor Comprehension:
Experiment and Simulation. [Conference Paper]
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., &; Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken
language understanding. Cognition 8, 1-71.
McGlone, M. S. (2003). Metaphor. In: Nadel, L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science (pp. 15–19). London: Macmillan Nature Publishing Group.
McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?
Language &; Communication, 27, 109-126.
Miller, G. A. (1993). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.),
Metaphor and Thought (pp. 186–201.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Neil1, W. T., Hilliard, D. V., &; Cooper, E. A. (1988). The detection of lexical
ambiguity: Evidence for context-sensitive parallel access. Journal of Memory
and Language 27, 279-287.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., &; Wasow, T. (1985). Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from
naming latency data. Perception and Psychophysics 38, 217-222.
Onishi, K. H., &; Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are
not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory &; Cognition, 21, 763–
772.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., &; Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting
metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17, 465-477.
Paris, R. (2002). Kosovo and the metaphor war. Political Science Quarterly, 117,
423–450.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92-123).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shinjo, M., &; Myers, J. (1987). The role of context in metaphor comprehension.
Journal of Memory &; Language, 26, 226-241.
Soskice, J. M. (1987). Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Su, Lily I-wen. (2002). What can metaphor tell us about culture? Language and
Linguistics 3 (3), 589-614.
Su, Lily I-wen. (2005). Conditionals as a reflection of mind. Language and
Linguistics 6 (4), 655-680.
Tendahl, M., &; Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor:
Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1823-
1864.
Tsai, L. (1994). The Metaphor of Body-parts in Chinese. M.A. Thesis. Taiwan:
National Tsing-Hua University.
Tsao, Feng-fu, Tsai, Li-chung, &; Liu, Hsiu-ying. (2001). Shengti yu piyu: yuyan yu
renzh de shouyao jiemian (Body and metaphor: the first interface of languagr and cognition). Taipei: Crane.
Turner, M. (1987). Death is the Mother of Beauty. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive
Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, L. K., &; Wessels, J. (1983). Quantifying contextual contributions to word
recognition processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 409-420.
Tyler, L. K. &; Wesse1s, J. (1985). Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming
latency data. Perception and Psychophysics 38, 217-222.
Van Dijk, T. A., &; Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Verbrugge, R. R., &; McCarrell, N. S. (1977). Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in
reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 494-533.
Vonk, W., Hustinx, L. G., &; Simons, W. H. (1992). The use of referential expressions
in structuring discourse. Language &; Cognitive Processes, 7(3), 301–333.
Winter, S. L. (1989). Transcendental nonsense, metaphoric reasoning, and the
cognitive stakes for law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137, 1105–
1123.
Winter, S.L. (1992). The meaning of ‘‘under color of’’ law. Michigan Law Review 91,
323–418.
Yu, Ning. (2008). The Comtemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from
Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

中文文獻引用:
徐弘縉 (2013)。搶救國文大作戰。龍騰文化。