Metaphor as a lens through which to examine deep, personal, emotional experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language is the most sophisticated tool humans have developed to communicate emotional experiences. However, due to their highly personal, idiosyncratic nature, such experiences can often be difficult to put into words. The dimensional aspects of emotional experiences, i.e., those involving valence, dominance and arousal can be expressed through literal language. However, once we go beyond these dimensional accounts and try to describe the subjective felt experiences of emotions it is necessary to employ metaphor. Metaphors provide information about the rich detail of human emotional experience in a way that literal language does not (Semino et al., 2017). Metaphorical skill and imagination are therefore important in communicating the nature of unshared experience and creating rapport (Reisfield & Wilson, 2004). For this reason, when talking about deep, personal emotional experiences that are difficult to describe, people often reach for metaphor, with more personal experiences leading to more creative uses of metaphor (Fainsilber & Ortony, 1987; Williams-Whitney et al., 1992). Possible reasons for this are the fact that metaphors allow us to describe ineffable experiences in more concrete, tangible, and often physical terms, and metaphors are sufficiently flexible to allow us to employ a finite set of linguistic resources to express precisely, an infinite range of experiences (Colston & Gibbs, 2021). In this talk I present findings from four studies, which involved the analysis of metaphor in order to better understand people’s personal, emotional experiences. These experiences include: pregnancy loss; bereavement; the description of positive and negative workplace experiences; and older adults’ experiences of lockdown during Covid 19. Through these studies I reveal what metaphor analysis can tell us about: embodied grief; agency and identity; relationships with others, including the deceased; attitudes towards time, the extent to which experiences are shared by communities; and the ways in which these experiences change over time. I reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of the methods employed and discuss the ways in which findings from some of these studies have been incorporated into professional development materials that have been designed for those who support the bereaved. References Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2021). Figurative language communicates directly because it precisely demonstrates what we mean. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale. Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(4), 239–250. Reisfield, G. M., & Wilson, G. R. (2004). Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(19), 4024–4027. Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S., & Rayson, P. (2017). Metaphor, cancer and the end of life: A corpus-based study. Routledge. Williams-Whitney, D., Mio, J. S., & Whitney, P. (1992). Metaphor production in creative writing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(6).
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,029 | 0,002 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».