Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Unusual but meaningful combinations of ideas and their expression in language are common in everyday life but no theory has yet been able to explain adequately their nature nor their effects upon human thought and behavior. Four hypotheses to explain different aspects of figurative language were proposed and elaborated: a structural hypothesis, an imagery hypothesis, and two linguistic hypotheses, one based upon semantic feature violations and the other upon Fillmore's case grammar. The structural hypothesis specified a number of conceptual relations which underlie the operation of figures—similarity, contiguity, hierarchy, and, most generally, conceptual integration. The imagery hypothesis distinguished those figures comprised of constituents with high imagery ratings from those with low imagery ratings and implied that certain combinations of high and low imagery constituents would produce more effective figures than other combinations. The linguistic hypotheses generated expectations regarding the relative effects of [-human] selectional restriction violations and the effects of violating agentive, objective, and dative case requirements. To test the hypotheses 240 grade eight, nine, and ten students from a high-SES area of Greater Vancouver were given group cued-recall tests, and likeability, similarity and comprehension scales for several lists of figurative expressions representing aspects of the various hypotheses in two syntactic patterns—nominal-copula-nominal figures, such as "A thicket is a city", and nominal-verb-nominal figures such as "The daffodil cripples the shadow". Grade trends were slight, although students in higher grades understood figurative language in a more abstract way and liked it better than students in lower grades. The psychological relevance of the structural hypothesis was particularly well substantiated by the observations. For recall and likeability, but especially for comprehension, students discriminated amongst figures in such a way as to show that the conceptual relations of similarity, contiguity, hierarchy, and integration are functional aspects of thought operative during the retrieval and interpretation of figurative language. Moderate similarity between concepts in high imagery metaphors produced more likeable figures than either extreme similarity or dissimilarity, but for figures of mixed imagery and embedded conceptual relations highly similar concepts produced more likeable figures. High imagery proved to be related strongly to figure recall, moderately to figure likeability but only modestly to figure comprehension. Figures with high imagery nouns surpassed those with high imagery verbs on all measures, and order of high and low imagery constituents favored Paivio's "conceptual peg" hypothesis for recall. Figures involving human semantic feature violations were less well recalled than those involving other violations, figures involving dative case violations were less well recalled than those involving objective case violations, and two case violations produced higher likeability and better comprehension than a single case violation. These effects are more difficult to integrate theoretically than those observed under the imagery or structural hypotheses. Because the structural hypothesis is more consistently supported by the data than are the linguistic hypotheses, and because the imagery hypothesis can largely be subsumed within the structural one, the latter, it is argued, provides the most adequate explanation of the psychological effects of figurative language. Fundamental in the comprehension of figurative thought is conceptual integration, a cognitive process facilitated by high imagery-inducing qualities of figure components, clear structural relations between them, and presence of sufficient semantic anomaly to maintain an optimal level of cognitive arousal.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».