{"title":"在叙事阅读过程中,眼球运动揭示了读者对刻意隐喻的敏感性","authors":"C. D. Vries, W. G. Reijnierse, Roel M. Willems","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are\n radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate\n and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification\n Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories.\n Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were\n read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were\n controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in\n reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline\n the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"34 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading\",\"authors\":\"C. D. Vries, W. G. Reijnierse, Roel M. Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are\\n radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate\\n and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification\\n Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories.\\n Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were\\n read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were\\n controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in\\n reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline\\n the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Empirical Studies of Literariness\",\"volume\":\"34 7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Empirical Studies of Literariness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
摘要
隐喻经常出现在文学文本中。刻意隐喻理论;例如,Steen, 2017)提出,具有交际功能的隐喻与不具有这种功能的隐喻有着根本的不同。我们研究了有意隐喻和非有意隐喻在文学阅读中的加工差异。使用刻意隐喻识别程序(Reijnierse et al., 2018),我们识别了两个文学故事中的隐喻。然后,使用眼动追踪来调查参与者(N = 72)的阅读行为。刻意隐喻的阅读速度比非刻意隐喻慢,两种隐喻类型的阅读速度都比非隐喻词慢。对几个心理语言学变量的差异进行了控制。阅读行为的差异与个体在阅读体验、故事吸收和欣赏方面的差异有关。这些结果与DMT的预测一致,并强调了在文学阅读实验研究中区分隐喻类型的重要性。
Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading
Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are
radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate
and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification
Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories.
Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were
read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were
controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in
reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline
the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.