Abstract Following the upsurge in the study of conceptual metaphor, the linguistic level of metaphor, particularly the level of metaphorical sentences, has regained significant attention. By reviewing the core research and the latest literature in this field, several fundamental judgments can be made. （1） Regarding the online processing characteristics of metaphorical sentences： The generation of literal and metaphorical meanings proceeds in a parallel manner, yet the cognitive resources required differ; Whether there is a priority order in the processing of the tenor and the vehicle remains to be explored more deeply, and the existing results are closely related to the testing purposes; Metaphorical sentences exhibit non-contextual irreversibility, but they show symmetry in the early processing stage. （2） In terms of the influencing factors of the online processing of metaphorical sentences： The impact of semantics can mostly be attributed to the domains of aptness and familiarity, and the processing time shortens as these two indicators increase, but there are also other significant influencing dimensions such as etymology and evocative metaphor; Cognitive resources like working memory affect the online processing of metaphorical sentences. （3） Concerning the mechanisms of the online processing of metaphorical sentences： The two major theories centered on the analogy mechanism and the attribution mechanism, as well as their reconciliation theory, can explain the current main findings. However, they are limited to exploring the mechanisms from the interaction of the internal components of metaphorical sentences and have not been verified in various forms of metaphorical sentences in Chinese. （4） Based on the high similarity between the characteristics of the “shu属” metaphorical sentences in Chinese and the sentences expressing the semantics of zodiac signs, and the empirical evidence supporting the construct transfer, it can be hypothesized that the construct transfer mechanism might at least be the processing mechanism of some metaphorical sentences.
LI Xiaoping,GE Minggui. The characteristics, influencing factors and mechanism of online processing of metaphorical sentences[J]. Psychological Research, 2024, 17(6): 491-502.
[1] 白亚停, 孟杰, 何文广. (2021). 时间词汇加工中的时空隐喻效应:来自阈上/阈下加工的证据.心理研究, (01), 20-28. [2] 陈庆荣, 谭顶良, 蔡厚德. (2012).汉语句子理解中句法启动机制的眼动和ERP研究.心理科学进展, (11), 1727-1734. [3] 陈淑丹, 李春玉, 陈穗清. (2020). 学前听障儿童隐喻的加工及理解.中国听力语言康复科学杂志, 18(1), 50-53. [4] 龚玉苗, 周榕. (2009). 隐喻生涯模型及其解释力.外国语文, 25(3), 65-70. [5] 郭晶晶, 赵婧超. (2017). 熟悉性对汉语隐喻义与本义加工机制的影响. 心理科学, 40(6), 1302-1308. [6] 居银. (2010). 隐喻义与字面义加工时程差异的ERP研究. 上海师范大学硕士学位论文. [7] 李莹, 刘俊, 张灿, 王悦. (2019).不同性质的汉语高熟悉度隐喻意义加工过程:来自ERP研究的证据.心理学探新, 39(4), 337-344. [8] 李莹, 莫雷, 史大鹏, 张学新. (2016).不同性质汉语隐喻句认知加工的fMRI研究.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 46(6), 33-45. [9] 李骋诗, 白学军, 王永胜. (2020). 映射具体性和语境线索对新颖隐喻加工的影响.心理与行为研究, 18(2), 153-160. [10] 李梦娜, 陈穗清, 张庆华.(2020). 5-6岁听觉障碍儿童隐喻理解能力的研究.中国特殊教育, (7), 57-66. [11] 李胜梅. (2014). 现代汉语比喻关系词研究. 河北大学博士学位论文. [12] 林嘉懿. (2020). 隐喻性质及熟悉度对隐喻加工进程的影响. 福建师范大学硕士学位论文. [13] 刘菁, 冯涛, 韩骏. (2006).两种隐喻理解的认知理论研究.首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), (4), 121-124. [14] 刘菁, 张必隐. (2002). 本体和喻体在隐喻句理解中的作用.心理科学, 25(3), 363-364. [15] 刘涛, 杨亦鸣. (2016). 基于事件相关电位的空语类分类的神经机制研究.外语研究, (5), 14-21. [16] 刘宇红. (2015).隐喻映射的双向性:隐喻生涯视角. 外国语言文学, 32(1), 1-6+31+72. [17] 潘琳玲, 朱守信. (2015).隐喻关系的可逆性研究. 解放军外国语学院学报, 38(1), 92-99. [18] 孙颖, 葛明贵, 宣宾. (2020).语言理解中汉语句法启动的“词汇增益”研究: 来自眼动的证据.外语学刊, (215), 72-77. [19] 唐世民. (2007). 隐喻理解的特征赋予模型.外语与外语教学, (9), 9-13. [20] 唐雪梅, 任维, 胡卫平. (2016).科学语言的认知神经加工机制研究:来自ERP的证据.心理科学, 39(5), 1071-1079. [21] 唐雪梅. (2016). 科学隐喻认知加工的ERP研究. 陕西师范大学博士学位论文. [22] 吴念阳, 陈俊卿, 居银, 白洁, 马子凤. (2012).汉语隐喻理解时程的ERPs研究.心理科学, 35(4), 811-816. [23] 解晴楠, 任维聪, 王汉林. (2019). 善与恶的重量意象:道德概念的重量隐喻研究.心理研究, (03),227-232. [24] 杨亦鸣, 刘涛. (2013).汉语话题句中语迹的神经机制研究.中国社会科学, (6), 146-208. [25] 易保树, 倪传斌. (2020). 执行工作记忆在二语者隐喻句理解加工中的作用.外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 43(3), 67-79. [26] 张欣. (2017). 二语隐喻理解中本体与喻体的抑制机制研究. 大连理工大学硕士学位论文. [27] 张伯江. (2018). 构式语法应用于汉语研究的若干思考. 语言教学与研究, (4), 2-11. [28] 张庆林, 邱江. (2007). 思维心理学. 重庆: 西南师范大学出版社. [29] 赵婧超. (2016). 汉语隐喻义与本义加工时程差异的研究. 陕西师范大学硕士学位论文. [30] 钟毅平, 周海波, 周路平, 陈芸, 范伟. (2011).显性度对隐喻加工的影响:事件相关电位研究.心理科学, 34(3), 527-531. [31] Al-Azary, H., & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness.Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 296-307. [32] Al-Azary, H., & Katz, A (2015). Novel metaphor comprehension: Topic concreteness, semantic neighbourhooddensity, and directionality. Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society: Chicago [33] Al-Azary, H., & Katz, A. (2020). Do metaphorical sharks bite? Simulation and abstraction in metaphor processing.Memory & Cognition, 2(11), 1-14. [34] Al-Azary H., Gagné C., & Spalding-Hhomas L. (2021). Flute birds and creamy skies: The metaphor interference effect in modifier-noun phrases.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(2), 175-181. [35] Baird, S. (2014). The role of working memory and divided attentionin metaphor interpretation.Journal of Psycholinguist Research, (43), 555-568. [36] Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor.Psychological Review, 112(1), 193-216. [37] Brdar M., Brdar-Szabo R., & Gradecak T. (2021). A note on the career of metaphorical domains: On the role of the XYZ constructions in metaphorical transfer reversal.Jezikoslovlje, 22(2), 339-372. [38] Bruhn, M. (2018). Target first on “bidirectionality and metaphor”.Poetics Today, 39(4), 703-733. [39] Campbell, J., & Katz, A. (2006). On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor.Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 1-22. [40] Chiappe D., Kennedy J., & Smykowski T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes.Metaphor and Symbol, 18(2), 85-105. [41] Chiappe, DanL., Kennedy, John, M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668-676. [42] Chouinard B.,Volden J., Hollinger J., & Cummine J.(2019). Spokenmetaphor comprehension: Evaluation using the metaphor interferenceeffect.Discourse Processes, 56(3), 270-287. [43] Clark, H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant fom what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14(15), 56-72. [44] Gentner, D. (1987). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science, (7), 155-170. [45] Gentner D.,& Bowdle, B. (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [46] Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor.Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 331-355. [47] Gil, D., & Shen, Y. (2021). Metaphors: The evolutionary journey from bidirectionality to unidirectionality.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-biological Sciences, 376(1824), 1-7. [48] Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language.Language in Society, 34(2), 307-310. [49] Glucksberg, S., & Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96. [50] Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18. [51] Glucksberg S., Gildea P., & Bookin H. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85-98. [52] Glucksberg S., McGlone M., & Manfredi D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50-67. [53] Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [54] Goldberg, E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [55] Harati P., Westbury C., Kiaee M., Harati P., Westbury C., et al. (2021). Evaluating the predication model of metaphor comprehension: Using word2vec to model best/worst quality judgments of 622 novel metaphors.Behavior Research Methods, 53(5), 2214-2225. [56] Hermann I., Haser V., van Elst L., Ebert D., Müller-Feldmeth D., et al. (2013). Automatic metaphor processing inadults with asperger syndrome: A metaphor interference effect task.European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 263(2), 177-187. [57] Hijazo-Gaseon A.,T. Cadiemo,L. Tharetxe-Antufano. (2016). Learning the placement caused motion construction in 1.2 Spanish [A]. In S. de Knop & G. Gilquin (eds.). Applied Construction G rammar[C] Berlin / Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. [58] Holyoak, K., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence.Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641-671. [59] Ikuta M., Miwa K., Ikuta M., & Miwa K. (2021). Structure mapping in second-language metaphor processing.Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 288-310. [60] Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, Robins, and Alarm Clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18-32. [61] Jones, L., Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization.Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110-124. [62] Karolina R., Anna P., Rob H., & van D. (2018). On understanding creative language: The late positive complex and novel metaphor comprehension.Brain Research, 1678, 231-244. [63] Kasirer, A., & Mashal, N. (2016). Comprehension and generation of metaphors by children with autism spectrum disorder.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, (32), 53-63. [64] Katz, A., & Al-Azary, H. (2017). Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor.Poetics Today, 38(1), 35-59. [65] Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257-66. [66] Lu, X., & Pritchard, T. (2021). Metaphoric interpretation comparison or categorisation?International Review of Pragmatics, 13(2), 287-314. [67] McGlone, M., & Manfredi, D. (2001). Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1209-1219. [68] Nap-Kolhoff , E. (2017). The development of Duteh object-naming constnuctions in bilingual Turkish-Dutch children receiving low amounts of Dutch language input [A . In 1 Evers-Vemeul & E. Tribushinina (eds.). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching]. Boston/Berlin：Walter de Gruyter. [69] Pambuccian F., Raney G., Pambuccian F., & Raney G. (2021). A simile is (like) a metaphor: Comparing metaphor and simile processing across the familiarity spectrum.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 75(2), 182-188. [70] Porat, R., & Shen, Y. (2017). Metaphor: The journey from bidirectionality to unidirectionality.Poetics Today, 38(1), 123-140. [71] Rai, S., & Chakraverty, S. (2020). A survey on computational metaphor processing.Acm Computing Surveys, 53(2), 24:1-37. [72] Roncero, C., & Almeida, R. (2015).Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes.Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 800-812. [73] Roncero C., de Almeida R., Pissani L., Patalas I., Roncero C., et al. (2021). A metaphor is not like a simile: Reading-time evidence for distinct interpretations for negated tropes.Metaphor and Symbol, 36(2), 85-98. [74] Rubio-fernandez P., Geurts B., Cummins C. (2017). Is an apple like a fruit? A study on comparison and categorisation statements.Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 367-390. [75] Searle, R. (1993). Metaphor. In A. Ortony(ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. [76] Thibodeau P., Sikos L., & Durgin F. (2018). Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences.Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 759-772. [77] Wearing, C.(2014). Interpreting novel metaphors.International Review of Prag-matics, 6, 78-102. [78] Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 529-541. [79] Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension.Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456-1488.
