Metaphorical Descriptions of Well-Doers

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Ewa Dryll
{"title":"Metaphorical Descriptions of Well-Doers","authors":"Ewa Dryll","doi":"10.2478/plc-2019-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What is a metaphoric picture of a “well-doer” made of? In a study devoted to the development of the ability to use metaphorical descriptions of humans, I tried to establish the semantic fields of four target metaphors: Human-Apple Tree, Human-Sun, Human-Cup, Human-Dolphin. Over 300 young adults (the exact number depending on the stimuli), both men and women aged 19-26, were asked to decipher the metaphors’ meanings. The results were obtained mainly by qualitative analysis, with frequency counts of clusters containing synonymous meanings. The results indicate that, while creating imaginary characteristics of ‘“kind humans,” young adults focus on three factors: benefactor provides help (which takes various, but consistent forms: he/she gives hope, an ear to listen to one’s problems, shares fruits of work, provides warmth and joy, etc.), benefactor’s mental stability (as opposed to sudden changes of mood, which is associated with weakness), benefactor’s skill of merging cheerfulness and tranquility. The semantic fields of stimuli addressed to kindness are more complex than the ones connected with evil. Goodness may be associated with wisdom, maturity, generosity, with both inactivity and vividness. Beauty seems to be less important than was expected. The results may serve for developmental comparisons.","PeriodicalId":20768,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Language and Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Language and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2019-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract What is a metaphoric picture of a “well-doer” made of? In a study devoted to the development of the ability to use metaphorical descriptions of humans, I tried to establish the semantic fields of four target metaphors: Human-Apple Tree, Human-Sun, Human-Cup, Human-Dolphin. Over 300 young adults (the exact number depending on the stimuli), both men and women aged 19-26, were asked to decipher the metaphors’ meanings. The results were obtained mainly by qualitative analysis, with frequency counts of clusters containing synonymous meanings. The results indicate that, while creating imaginary characteristics of ‘“kind humans,” young adults focus on three factors: benefactor provides help (which takes various, but consistent forms: he/she gives hope, an ear to listen to one’s problems, shares fruits of work, provides warmth and joy, etc.), benefactor’s mental stability (as opposed to sudden changes of mood, which is associated with weakness), benefactor’s skill of merging cheerfulness and tranquility. The semantic fields of stimuli addressed to kindness are more complex than the ones connected with evil. Goodness may be associated with wisdom, maturity, generosity, with both inactivity and vividness. Beauty seems to be less important than was expected. The results may serve for developmental comparisons.
行善者的隐喻描写
“实干家”的隐喻是由什么构成的?在一项关于人类隐喻描述能力发展的研究中,我试图建立四个目标隐喻的语义场:人-苹果树、人-太阳、人-杯子、人-海豚。300多名年龄在19-26岁之间的年轻人(确切数字取决于刺激物)被要求解读隐喻的含义。结果主要是通过定性分析获得的,包含同义的聚类的频率计数。结果表明,在创造“善良人类”的想象特征时,年轻人关注三个因素:施主提供帮助(形式多样,但一致:施主给予希望,倾听别人的问题,分享工作成果,提供温暖和快乐等),施主的精神稳定(相对于情绪的突然变化,这与软弱有关),施主融合快乐和平静的技能。善意刺激的语义场要比邪恶刺激复杂得多。善良可能与智慧、成熟、慷慨、不活跃和生动联系在一起。美似乎没有人们想象的那么重要。研究结果可用于发展比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychology of Language and Communication
Psychology of Language and Communication Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信