The conceptual metaphors of narrative structure: Gestural evidence for spatialized form in storytelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores conceptual tools whereby narratively competent adults conceptualize the structure of literary events, as opposed to their scene content. My focus lies on how narrativity as a mode of thought is constituted through metanarrative discourse and what role embodied representations play in it. This global level of story cognition takes the form of conceptual metaphors such as TIME IS A PATH, CAUSALITY IS FORCE, or THEMATIC REALMS ARE SPACES/PLANES. Two kinds of evidence for this claim are combined: (a) linguistic metaphors for story gist, and, more extensively, (b) metaphorical gestures that accompany story summarization and commentary. Based on footage in which German literary critics discuss books, my specific task is to identify the various dimensions of story logic that gestures refer to. Overall, the data suggests that narrative form is systematically rooted in spatial logic and that dedicated structural devices dynamically co-evolve with the retelling of content. The study thus contributes a demonstration of Lakoff’s (1987) “spatialization of form hypothesis”, i.e. the wide ranging claim that structural cognition is rooted in image schemas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".