Conceptual Metaphor of Time in Transient Days by Zhu Ziqing: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tries to explore the conceptual metaphor of time in Transient Days, an essay about time written by a famous Chinese writer, Zhu Ziqing, to address such problems as (1) Is there any linguistic evidence in Transient Days supporting the universality of the conceptual metaphor models (TIME IS A THING/ENTITY, TIME PASSING IS MOTION (THROUGHN SPACE) and TIME IS MONEY (A VALUABLE COMMODITY/LIMITED RESOURCE)) established by the previous studies?; and (2) Concerning the TIME PASSING IS MOTION model, are there more TIME PASSING IS A MOVING OBJECT than TIME PASSING IS MOTION OVER A LANDSCAPE metaphors in it? Key words: Conceptual metaphor, time, Transient Days Resume: Le present article tente d’explorer la metaphore du temps dans les Jours transitoires, un essai sur le temps ecrit par un ecrivain celebre chinois Zhu Ziqing, pour poser des problemes, tels que : (1) Est-ce qu’il y a des preuves linguistiques dans les Jours transitoires supportant l’universalite des modeles de metaphore conceptuelle ( Le temps est une chose/entite, l’ecoulement du temps est un mouvement (a travers l’espace) et le temps est l’argent ( un article d’usage valable/ une ressource limitee) etablis par les etudes precedentes ? (2) En ce qui concerne le modele que l’ecoulement du temps est un mouvement, est-ce qu’il y a plus de metaphores sur le fait que l’ecoulement du temps est un objet mouvant que sur le fait que l’ecoulement du temps est un mouvement au dessus d’un paysage ? Mots-Cles: metaphore conceptuelle, temps, Jours transitoires 摘 要：本文通過分析著名中國作家朱自清的散文《匆匆》中關於時間的概念隱喻來解決以下兩個問題：（1）《匆匆》中是否有語言事實支援在以往研究中建立的時間概念隱喻的模型：時間是一個事物/實體，時間流逝是移動（穿過空間），時間是金錢（有價值的商品/有限的資源）；（2）鑒於時間流逝是移動這一概念隱喻模型之下又可分為兩個小模型：時間流逝是一個移動的物體和時間流逝是穿過空間的移動，本文同時探究在《匆匆》中哪個小模型的時間隱喻更多一些？ 關鍵詞：概念隱喻；時間；《匆匆》
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".