Metaphors across cultures

Hassan Banaruee; Danyal Farsani; Omid Khatin-Zadeh; Zahra Eskandari

doi:10.1515/psicl-2023-0035

Article

Metaphors across cultures

Hassan Banaruee , Danyal Farsani , Omid Khatin-Zadeh and Zahra Eskandari

Published/Copyright: May 16, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics Volume 60 Issue 2

Abstract

The way and degree to which people in different cultures consider a metaphor to be appropriate, acceptable, or apt has been the subject of controversy in recent decades. According to structure-mapping models, metaphors are understood by mapping relations from the base domain to relations in the target domain. However, previous research lacks literature on cross-cultural contexts and differences in the degree of acceptability of metaphors in different cultures. To address this gap, in this study we examined cross-cultural differences in metaphor aptness among participants from three different cultures. We developed two questionnaires, an acceptability judgment-task and a parallel-relation test using the COCA (English), PLDB (Persian), and KorAP (German) corpus databases. The results suggest striking differences in the acceptance of a metaphor in different cultures where the vehicle of a metaphor is not present. It is suggested that metaphors are considered apt through the process of categorizing the salient features that are considered structurally similar. This idea is partially consistent with studies that support class-inclusion models which suggest that hearers place the topic of a metaphor in a category in which the vehicle fits. The absence of a domain (whether topic or vehicle) may lead to unacceptability of a metaphor. Lack of cultural background in the use of these words hinders the process of finding a salient feature between them and the counter domain in a metaphor to form an appropriate alignment.

Keywords: intercultural pragmatics; metaphors; culture; cognitive linguistics; alignment

Corresponding author: Omid Khatin-Zadeh, School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, E-mail: khatinzadeh.omid@yahoo.com

Code of Ethics: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board for studies involving humans.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Data availability: Data related to the questionnaires and the results are available at https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Metaphor_aptness_across_cultures/22958708.

References

Allbritton, David W., Gail McKoon & Richard J. Gerrig. 1995. Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: Making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21. 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.612.Search in Google Scholar

Almirabi, Maisarah M. 2015. When metaphors cross cultures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 6(1). 204–209. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0601.25.Search in Google Scholar

Arbib, Michael A. 2012. How the brain got language: The mirror system hypothesis. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896684.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Banaruee, Hassan, Khoshsima Hooshang, Khatin-Zadeh Omid & Askari Afsane. 2017. Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology 4(1). 1–6.10.1080/23311908.2017.1409323Search in Google Scholar

Banaruee, Hassan, Khoshsima Hooshang, Zare-Behtash Esmail & Yarahmadzehi Nahid. 2019a. Types of metaphors and mechanisms of comprehension. Cogent Education 6(1). 1617824. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1617824.Search in Google Scholar

Banaruee, Hassan, Khoshsima Hooshang, Zare-Behtash Esmail & Yarahmadzehi Nahid. 2019b. Reasons behind using metaphor: A cognitive perspective on metaphoric language. NeuroQuantology 17(3). 108–113. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.3.2001.Search in Google Scholar

Borghi, Anna M., Ferdinand Binkofski, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Felic Cimatti, Claudia Scorolli & Luca Tummolini. 2017. The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin 143(3). 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089.Search in Google Scholar

Bowdle, Brian F. & Dedre Gentner. 1999. Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In Martin Hahn & Scott C. Stoness (eds.), Proceedings of twenty-first annual Conference of cognitive science society, 90–95. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.10.4324/9781410603494-21Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, David. 2008. Psychology of language. Toronto: Thompson Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2012. Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 469–492. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025Search in Google Scholar

De la Fuente, Juanma, Casasanto Daniel, Martínez-Cascales Jose Isidro & Santiago Julio. 2016. Motor imagery shapes abstract concepts. Cognitive Science 41(5). 1360.10.1111/cogs.12406Search in Google Scholar

Devereux, Barry J., Kirsten I. Taylor, Billi Randall, Jeroen Geertzen & Lorraine K. Tyler. 2016. Feature statistics modulate the activation of meaning during spoken word processing. Cognitive Science 40. 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12234.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024.Search in Google Scholar

Eskandari, Z. & Hooshang Khoshsima. 2021. A study of cross-cultural variations of metaphor aptness and their implications in foreign language teaching. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 14(3). 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2021.10036834.Search in Google Scholar

Fetterman, Adam K., Jessica L. Bair, Marc Werth, Florian Landkammer & Michael D. Robinson. 2016. The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand how metaphor functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110(3). 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000067.Search in Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7. 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3.Search in Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre & Brian F. Bowdle. 2008. Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr (ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109–128. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & Rachel R. W. Robertson. 1999. The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 1619–1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00007-7.Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, Boaz Keysar, Rachel R. W. Robertson & Necia K. Werner. 2001. The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45. 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs Jr, Raymond W. 1994. Figurative thought and figurative language. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, 411–446. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gildea, Patricia & Sam Glucksberg. 1983. On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22. 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90355-9.Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2.Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam & Boaz Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam & Catrinel Haught. 2006. On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language 21. 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gray, Maureen E. & Keith J. Holyoak. 2020. Individual differences in relational reasoning. Memory & Cognition 48. 96–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00964-y.Search in Google Scholar

Hartung, Franziska, Yoed N. Kenett, Eileen R. Cardillo, Stacey Humphries, Nathaniel Klooster & Anja Chatterjee. 2020. Context matters: Novel metaphors in supportive and non-supportive contexts. NeuroImage 212. 116645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116645.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, Lara L. & Z. Estes. 2005. Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language 53. 110–124.10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.016Search in Google Scholar

Jones, Lara L. & Zachary Estes. 2006. Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid. 2023. Embodied metaphor processing: A study of the priming impact of congruent and opposite gestural representations of metaphor schema on metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol 38(1). 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2122830.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid & Sedigheh Vahdat. 2015. Abstract and concrete representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 2(2). 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Bakhshizadeh Gashti Yousef & Hassan Banaruee. 2017. Partial vs. full abstract classes: A review of Glucksberg’s class-inclusion model of metaphor comprehension. International Journal of Brain and Cognitive Sciences 6(3). 51–57. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijbcs.20170603.02.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Hassan Banaruee & Yazdani-Fazlabadi Babak. 2019a. Suppression in metaphor comprehension: A perspective from distributed models of conceptual representation. NeuroQuantology 17(2). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.1.1919.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Zahra Eskandari, Hassan Banaruee & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos. 2019b. Abstract metaphorical classes: A perspective from distributed models of conceptual representation. Polish Psychological Bulletin 50(2). 108–113.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid & Zahra Eskandari. 2021. Cognitive processes involved in metaphor aptness. Polish Psychological Bulletin 52(2). 153–164.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Banaruee Hassan & Yazdani-Fazlabadi Babak. 2022. A cognitive perspective on basic generic metaphors and their specific-level realizations. Polish Psychological Bulletin 53(2). 60–65. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2022.123355.Search in Google Scholar

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Banaruee Hassan, Reali Florencia, Tirado Carlos, Ruiz-Fernández Susana, Yamada Yuki, Wang Ruiming, Nicolas Robin, Khwaileh Tariq, Szychowska Malina, Vestlund Joanna, Juan C. Correa, Farsani Danyal, Butcher Natalie, Som Bidisha, Volkonskii Ivan, Plevoets Koen & Marmolejo-Ramos Fernando. 2023. Metaphors of time across cultures. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 7(3). 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-023-00125-3.Search in Google Scholar

Khoshsima, Hooshang & Zahra Eskandari. 2021. A study of cross-cultural variations of metaphor aptness and their implications in foreign language teaching. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 14(3). 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2021.116878.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltan. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltan. 2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2). 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052.Search in Google Scholar

Lakens, Daniel, Gün R. Semin & Francesco Foroni. 2011. Why your highness needs the people. Social Psychology 42. 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000064.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1986. A figure of thought. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1. 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0103_4.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ortony, Andrew. 1979. Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 1–19. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.003Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José. 2003. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, 109–132. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110894677.109Search in Google Scholar

Thibodeau, Paul H. & Frank H. Durgin. 2011. Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol 26(3). 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Ning. 2009. The Chinese heart in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213348Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Ning. 2020. Linguistic embodiment in linguistic experience: A corpus-based study. In Iwona Kraska-Szlenk (ed.), Body part terms in conceptualization and language usage, 11–30. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.12.c01yuSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-05-19

Accepted: 2024-03-17

Published Online: 2024-05-16

Published in Print: 2024-06-25

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2023-0035

Keywords for this article

intercultural pragmatics; metaphors; culture; cognitive linguistics; alignment