Mapping models in novel metaphors and their effect on gaze behavior and default interpretations in native and target languages

Abstract

In the study, we address the problem of existing differences in reading and understanding novel metaphors in the text fragments in native and target languages (L1 and L2), with these differences potentially attributed to both the specifics of forming analogies in native and target languages, and the mapping characteristics of metaphors. The study identifies the contingency effects of several primary metaphors onto the gaze behavior and default interpretation of textual novel metaphors in L1 (Russian) and L2 (English). To proceed, we use the text fragments in L1 and L2 containing novel metaphors appearing in more and less focal syntactic positions in a two-stage oculographic experiment. We obtain the participants’ gaze metrics values and the participants’ responses specifying the target domains of the novel metaphors, which further allows us to disclose the contingencies. Methodologically, the study is grounded in the metaphor processing theories developed in cognitive psychology, which explore the structure of analogical reasoning and associative fluency as manifesting potentially different effects in L1 and L2. To validate it, we also address the cognitive linguistic theories which provide the framework for identifying the primary metaphor models (here the models PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT, PARTS ARE WHOLE, CONCRETE IS ABSTRACT) and for testing their effect onto information construal. We hypothesize that reading and understanding metaphors will proceed differently in L1 and L2, which is attributed to associative fluency in metaphor mapping in native and target languages. The experiment results do not show the differences in understanding the mapping model PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT in L1 and L2, whereas these differences appear in understanding the models PARTS ARE WHOLE and CONCRETE IS ABSTRACT with higher default interpretation index in L1. The model PATIENT (OBJECT) IS AGENT is also found to stimulate higher gaze costs. The results suffice to claim that there are differences in the cognitive costs produced by primary metaphor models, which allows us to range and specify their role in information construal in L1 and L2.

Metaphors across languages, cultures and discourses: A research agenda

“…In an increasingly interconnected world, where communication transcends geographical and cultural confines, understanding how metaphors function across linguistic and cultural diversity becomes crucial. Metaphors often carry layers of meaning deeply grounded in cultural contexts, and their interpretation can vary drastically between languages and cultures (see Alazazmeh & Zibin 2022, Ervas 2017, Kiose 2023, Kilyeni & Silaški 2014, Kövecses 2005, Tran 2022 among others). By unravelling these complex interplays, we gain insights not only into language, culture and discourse, but also into the dynamics of cross-cultural interaction and the ways in which metaphorical expressions shape our perceptions.…”

“…Цель нашего специального выпуска -обсудить актуальные тенденции в исследовании природы метафоры и ее роли в концептуализации окружающей действительности и конструировании смыслов на фоне широкого лингвистического, культурного и дискурсивного контекстов. Поскольку коммуникация часто не ограничивается одной лингвокультурой и географическими границами государства, особую значимость приобретают такие характеристики концептуальной метафоры, как универсальность и вариативность (Alazazmeh & Zibin 2022, Ervas 2017, Kiose 2023, Kilyeni & Silaški 2014, Kövecses 2005, Tran 2022), которые позволяют получить представление не только о функционировании метафоры в определенных языке, культуре и дискурсе, но и о динамике межкультурного взаимодействия, о том, как метафора формирует наше восприятие действительности.…”