1 / 59

Image schema projection primed by pictures Manami Sato Dec. 3, 2004 Cognitive Research Group

Image schema projection primed by pictures Manami Sato Dec. 3, 2004 Cognitive Research Group. Summary of the Presentation. Pilot experiment 1) Background information 2) Research question 3) Hypothesis 4) Pilot experiment 5) Results and discussion Possible interpretations

axelle
Download Presentation

Image schema projection primed by pictures Manami Sato Dec. 3, 2004 Cognitive Research Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Image schema projection primed by pictures Manami Sato Dec. 3, 2004 Cognitive Research Group

  2. Summary of the Presentation Pilot experiment 1) Background information 2) Research question 3) Hypothesis 4) Pilot experiment 5) Results and discussion Possible interpretations 1) Image schema activation 2) Linguistic description 3) Structural priming

  3. Do you know how hard it would be to talk without metaphors? New York Times: • “a sale of the personal computer business would be a step away from IBM’s traditional emphasis…” • Profits in hardware business were slender and growth prospects were limited. • Personal computer making has followed the same path to Asia… • …attack on the web site. • We have reached our goal…

  4. Conceptual metaphors: Metaphors people unconsciously use in everyday life. i.e.) “follow the same path” “reached the goal” Creative metaphors: i.e.)

  5. How do people make metaphorical sentences unconsciously? Contemporary theory of metaphor According to this theory, we unconsciously process an image schema projection, that is, a projection of concrete experiences onto abstract concept. In other words, we use concepts we know well based on our experiences to understand more abstract concept such as emotions.

  6. My experiment aims at testing whether people actually process in metaphor production or not .

  7. Background information Contemporary theory of metaphor (CTM) by Lakoff and Johnson(1980) There are 5 primary claims they proposed: (1) Conceptual metaphors (2) Cognitive domains existence (3) Mental images grounded in perceptual experience (4) Its operation: Image schema projection (5) Evidence: Linguistic expressions

  8. (1) What are conceptual metaphors? • They focus on only conceptual metaphors. • Conventionalized metaphor expressions (NOT poetic or creative metaphor expressions) • Metaphors people use unconsciously and automatically. i.e.) I got an idea. She stole my idea. We exchange our ideas.

  9. (2) Cognitive domains existence The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing (abstract domain) in terms of another (concrete domain). i.e.) ANGER IS HOT LIQUID IN A CONTAINER metaphor  A concept of ANGER is understood in terms of HOT LIQUID IN A CONTAINER concept. • “She was brimming with rage”  anger is heat of a liquid in a container • “He got steamed up about what she said”  intensity of anger is degree of temperature (producing steam) • “He managed to keep his anger bottled up inside him”  Suppressing anger is closing a container

  10. (3) Mental images grounded in perceptual experience Concrete domains contain image components called Mental Images. They come from perceptual experience or bodily based experience. HOT LIQUID IN A CONTAINER ANGER

  11. (4) Image schema projection • It is an operation for metaphor production. • It projects part of a general structure of a recurrent pattern of bodily experience onto another. • It's dynamic, rather than static (item-to-item projection). • Unconscious and automatic. • In order to talk and think about abstract domain we use the structure of other concrete domains.

  12. i.e.) “ANGER IS HOT LIQUID IN A CONTAINER” We projectinternal structure from our everyday conception of HOT LIQUID IN A CONTAINERto organize our everyday conception of ANGER. Since projection is not simple image-to-image mappings, instead, it is a dynamic structure projection, we can also project inferences from a concrete domain to an abstract domain.

  13. Anger Hot liquid in a container Degree of temperature Intensity of anger Structure projection body Container Inference: Hot liquid might splash you. It’s dangerous to be around it. Inference: You might be the target w/o reasons. It’s dangerous to be around angry person.

  14. (5) Linguistic evidence for Conceptual metaphors The evidence for conceptual metaphors is inferred from linguistic expressions that occur systematically and consistently in the everyday speech. • Anger is hot liquid in a container: “She was brimming with rage” “He got steamed up about what she said” “He managed to keep his anger bottled up inside him” “Let him stew”

  15. Motivation of the study Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (CTM): (a) Cognitive domains existence (b) Mental images (c) Image schema projection  Metaphor is a matter of thought.  Thought is reflected in words. However, CTM does not provide an empirical-based evidence in language production: do people really activate the concrete domain when they produce metaphorical language?

  16. Research Question • Is it possible to prove this unconscious image projection, that is, projection of concrete/scene domain onto abstract domains to understand abstract concepts? • In other words, how can we prove that people construct and process image schema projection in metaphor production?

  17. Pilot experiment

  18. Hypothesis If an image schema projection takes a placewhile producing metaphorical sentences, then, Picture instantiates a concrete image schema, and should activate metaphorically associated abstract domains. This should result in increased production of corresponding metaphorical language about that target domain.

  19. Example: Perceiving a static picture (an apple in the box) would activate the whole domain of Containment (being contained, getting out from or getting into the box etc.). As a result, people would make associated metaphorical sentences not only ‘S. is in trouble’ (static events), but also ‘S. is getting into trouble’ (DynamicContainment event).

  20. Perceiving a picture ‘being contained’ component is activated. At the same time...

  21. Not only that, but the whole domain of containment is activated. Perceiving a picture

  22. Given words Sally + Trouble S is out of trouble Perceiving a picture S is in trouble S. got into trouble

  23. Pilot-Experiment Each trial is conducted as follows: Pictures are selected based on norming study. They should be the same type (either cont. pictuers or poss. Pictures). Record Response sentence Picture Prime Target Words Picture Prime 500ms 2500ms 2500ms 3000ms

  24. Materials (Picture Primes) Condition A (Containment) • an apple in a box / a bird in a cage • a person in a car / a goldfish in a fish tank Condition B (Possession) • a person holding an apple/a dog holding a cookie • a person carrying a baby/a gorilla having a banana Condition C (Neutral) • a dog chasing a cat / a person singing a song • a smiling baby / a person watching TV

  25. Recall norming study for pictures To ensure that the pictures can clearly convey their containment or possession concepts, a recall norming study was conducted with 2 subjects (I am planning to do this with 10 subjects). Norming test: (1) Provide a picture for 1000ms (2) Picture disappears (3) Ask a subject to describe what he saw. (4) Select cont./poss. pictures both subjects agree.

  26. Materials (Targets words) An animate Noun + a Critical word Animate nouns: Person’s name Critical words: allow participants equal possibilities to create both containment and possession sentences. Trouble (in trouble/ have trouble) Pain (in pain/ have a slight pain) Affair (in an affair/ have an affair) Day (in a day/ have a sunny day) Whether the words were not strongly biased to either cont. or poss. were examined by applying BNC corpus search.

  27. BNC Corpus search for target words • Purpose: To know which underlying preference (cont. or poss.) each target word has. • Method: 1000 sentences (500 from written and 500 from spoken materials) are selected for each target word from BNC data files. • Data includes lectures, speeches, conversations, journals, books, newspapers etc. Ideally, the use of cont. and poss. metaphors is 50/50. because…

  28. Because if the crucial words are unbiased to cont. and poss., then the prime effect can be easily reflected by the responses. If the words are strongly biased to either type, then the priming effect cannot be realized easily.

  29. Prediction…

  30. Cont. Primes Possession Primes Neutral Primes Prime Effect Prime Effect Activation Of P-Schema Activation Of C-Schema Container Metaphors Underlying word preference Possession Metaphors

  31. Examples Cont. pictures Sally, trouble  ‘Sally is in trouble’ Neutral pictures Sally, trouble  ‘Sally is in trouble’ Interpretations: (1) Cont. pictures prime a container metaphor. (2) Underlying preference of the word ‘trouble’  Cannot confirm which of them is the source of priming.

  32. Examples Cont. pictures Sally, trouble  ‘Sally is in trouble’ Neutral pictures Sally, trouble  ‘Sally has trouble’ Interpretation: (1) Pictures shift the underlying word preference from possession to containment.  Can confirm that cont. pictures are the source of the priming to lead a container metaphor.

  33. This is why it’s important to have fairly biased words which allow cont. and poss. sentences in 50/50. • The shift from one to the other type of metaphors can be the evidence for the picture priming effect. Good: Bad: Underlying word preference Poss. Metaphors N N S + trouble Cont.50 Poss.50 Shift from Poss. to Cont. because of pictures C C Cont. Metaphors Cont. N N S + pain Cont.80 Poss.20 Cont. C C Hard to be influenced Cont. P P

  34. Brief Results…

  35. Underlying word preference 16.67%

  36. Examples for Containment metaphors The results show the whole domain of Containment Words ((Satic & Dynamic words)): i.e.) ‘Sally + trouble’ • Sally is in trouble.  • Sally got out of the trouble. • Sally’s life is full of trouble. i.e.) ‘Tom + situation’ • Tom is in difficult situation.  • Tom put us in a strange situation. Static word Dynamic words Static word Dynamic words

  37. Underlying word preference 14.4%

  38. Examples for Containment metaphors The results show the whole domain of possession words ((Static & Dynamic words)): i.e.) ‘Sally + trouble’ • Sally is having trouble with her family. • Sally gave me too much trouble. i.e.) ‘Tom + pain’ • Tom has a pain in the back.  • That gave Tom a lot of pain. • Tom did not take great pain. Static word Dynamic words Static word Dynamic words

  39. Cont. Primes Neutral Primes Possession Primes Prime Effect Prime Effect Activation Of P-Schema Activation Of C-Schema 16.7% 14.4% Underlying word preference Possession Metaphors Container Metaphors

  40. Conclusion As predicted, perceiving a static picture (an apple in the box) activated the dynamic event of the whole domain (being contained, getting out from or getting into the box etc.). As a result, pictures influence the preference of metaphorical sentences. It supports that image schema projection occurs during metaphor production.

  41. Are there any other possible interpretations (except image schema projection)?

  42. Interpretations Intp#1: Image schema activation (metaphor) Intp#2: Linguistic description Intp#3: Structural priming

  43. Image schema projection in metaphor production triggered by pictures Perception Categorization (meaning extraction) Int.#1 Metaphor Int.#2 Int.#3 Image schema Priming Ling.Description Priming Structural Priming Static & dynamic sentences ‘in X’, ‘out of X’ ‘get into X’ ‘have X’ ‘give, exchange X’

  44. Possible interpretation: Linguistic Description priming Perception Categorization (meaning extraction) Int.#1 Metaphor Int.#2 Int.#3 Image schema Priming Ling.Description Priming Structural Priming Static & dynamic sentences ‘in X’, ‘out of X’ ‘get into X’ ‘have X’ ‘give, exchange X’

  45. Intp.#2 Linguistic description Ling. Descriptions of pictures:  • Cont. pictures … “X is in Y” (( being contained)) • Poss. Pictures … “X has/carries/holds Y” (( being possessed)) Schema words:  • Cont. pictures … “X gives/steals/lose Y” ((changing its state)) • Poss. Pictures … “X is out of Y, gets into Y” ((changing)) Static events Dynamic events

  46. If there is linguistic priming…..  we should have more static sentences. If there is image schema priming …  we should have more static & dynamic sentences.

  47. Static/Dynamic words in Cont. metaphor sentences Not only Static, but also Dynamic sentences increased after perceiving picture prime.

  48. Static/Dynamic words in Poss. metaphor sentences Not only Static, but also Dynamic sentences increased after perceiving picture prime.

  49. In both Cont. and Poss. metaphorical sentences, there are increase of both static & dynamic sentences. It means that there is image schema priming, instead of linguistic priming.

  50. Possible interpretation:Structural Priming Perception Categorization (meaning extraction) Int.#1 Metaphor Int.#2 Int.#3 Image schema Priming Ling.Description Priming Structural Priming Static & dynamic sentences ‘in X’, ‘out of X’ ‘get into X’ ‘have X’ ‘give, exchange X’

More Related