Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal
      

 

2020 Vol. 13 Issue 73

Migun J.P. The metaphorical relativity hypothesis: confirm or disprove?

Full text in Russian: Мигун Ю.П. Гипотеза метафорической относительности: признать нельзя отвергнуть

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

About author
Suggested citation

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity is well-known in cognitive psychology. It implies the relationship between the structure of a language and cognitive processes. There are two versions of this hypothesis at present: a strong one, claiming that language determines cognitive processes, and a weak one, claiming that language just has an effect on cognitive processes. Considerable empirical evidence exists to support both versions of this hypothesis.
To date, cognitive science has accumulated sufficient evidence, which allows putting forward the hypothesis of metaphorical relativity. According to this hypothesis, there is a connection between metaphorical representations of a person and one’s cognitive processes. This article aims to present theoretical models of metaphoric relativity and empirical evidence in support. Additionally, the aim is to formulate limitations, issues, and questions to be answered with regards to the described theories and to propose possible solutions. With this aim we considered existing conceptualizations of the “metaphor” as well as the approaches to metaphor processing such as conceptual theory of metaphors, the theory of perceptual symbols; we provided empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of metaphorical relativity and mentioned the limitations given the existing research; at last we concluded whether theoretical and empirical data is enough to confirm the hypothesis of metaphorical relativity. Recommendations for the future research are also introduced.

Keywords: metaphor, hypothesis of linguistic relativity, hypothesis of metaphoric relativity, embodied cognition, sensorimotor processes, conceptual theory of metaphor, perceptual symbols 

Full text in Russian >>

References
Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.

Gordon D. Terapevticheskiye metafory. SPb.: Belyy krolik, 1995. S. 66-71.

Ackerman J.M., Nocera C.C., Bargh J.A. Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science. 2010, 328(5986), 1712-1715. DOI: 10.1126/science.1189993

Aktipis C.A., Maley C.C., Neuberg S.L. Psychological barriers to evolutionary thinking in medicine. Evolution and Medicine Review. 2010, 231.

Barsalou L.W. Abstraction as dynamic interpretation in perceptual symbol systems. Building object categories. 2005, 30322, 389-431.

Barsalou L.W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences. 1999, 22(4), 577-660. DOI: 10.1.1.4.5511&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Beck B. Metaphors, cognition, and artificial intelligence. Cognition and symbolic structure: The psychology of metaphoric transformation. 1987, 9-30. 

Boroditsky L. Linguistic relativity. Encyclopedia of cognitive science. 2006. DOI: 10.1002/0470018860.s00567

Chaiken S., Wood W., Eagly A.H. Principles of persuasion, 1996. 

Chambers D.W. Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw‐a‐Scientist Test. Science education. 1983, 67(2), 255-265. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730670213

Chandler J.J., Reinhard D., Schwarz N. To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012, 48(4), 948-952. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.00.

Charteris-Black J. Fire metaphors: Discourses of awe and authority. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Davidoff J., Davies I., Roberson D. Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature. 1999, 398(6724), 203-204.

Dolscheid S., Casasanto D. Spatial congruity effects reveal metaphorical thinking, not polarity correspondence. Frontiers in psychology. 2015, 6, 1836. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01836.

Elmore K. C., Luna-Lucero M. Light bulbs or seeds? How metaphors for ideas influence judgments about genius. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2017, 8(2), 200-208. DOI: 10.1177/1948550616667611.

Fiske S.T., Cuddy A.J.C., Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2007, 11(2), 77-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.

Gentner D., Bowdle B.F. Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. 2008, 109-128.

Gibbs Jr R. W. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition. 1996, 61(3), 309-319.

Gibbs Jr R. W., Lima P. L. C., Francozo E. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics. 2004, 36(7), 1189-1210. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009.

Glucksberg S., Gildea P., Bookin H.B. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1982, 21(1), 85-98. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90467-4.

Glucksberg S., McGlone M.S., Manfredi D. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of memory and language. 1997, 36(1), 50-67.

Grady J. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. 1997.

Hauser D.J., Schwarz N. The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015, 41(1), 66-77. DOI: 10.1177/0146167214557006.

Hendricks R.K., Boroditsky L. Emotional implications of metaphor: consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about hardship. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2016, 1164-1169.

Horchak O.V. et al. From demonstration to theory in embodied language comprehension: a review. Cognitive Systems Research. 2014, 29, 66-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.09.002.

Johnson-Laird P.N. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, 1983. P. 6.

Keefer L.A. et al. Embodied metaphor and abstract problem solving: Testing a metaphoric fit hypothesis in the health domain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014, 55, 12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.012 0022-1031.

Kövecses Z. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kövecses Z. The language of love: The semantics of passion in conversational English. Bucknell University Press, 1988.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Philosophy in the Flesh. Nova Iorque: A Member of the Persus Books Group, 1999.

Lee S.W.S., Schwarz N. Framing love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014, 54, 61-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007

Lucy J.A. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Marin A., Reimann M., Castano R. Metaphors and creativity: Direct, moderating, and mediating effects (vol. 24, p. 290, 2014). Journal of consumer psychology. 2016, 26(1), 167-167.

McGlone M.S., Manfredi D.A. Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition. 2001, 29(8), 1209-1219. DOI: 10.3758/BF03206390.

Meier B.P. et al. What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2007, 93(5), 699. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.699.

Meier B.P., Robinson M.D. Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological science. 2004, 15(4), 243-247.

Mio J.S., Thompson S.C., Givens G.H. The commons dilemma as metaphor: Memory, influence, and implications for environmental conservation. Metaphor and Symbol. 1993, 8(1), 23-42. DOI: 10.1207/s15327868ms0801_2.

Patterson K.J. The analysis of metaphor: to what extent can the theory of lexical priming help our understanding of metaphor usage and comprehension? Journal of psycholinguistic research. 2016, 45(2), 237-258. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-014-9343-1.

Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and persuasion. New York, NY: Springer, 1986. P. 1-24.

Read S.J. et al. When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbol. 1990, 5(3), 125-149. DOI: 10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1.

Reisfield G.M., Wilson G.R. Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of clinical oncology. 2004, 22(19), 4024-4027.

Schnall S., Benton J., Harvey S. With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological science. 2008, 19(12), 1219-1222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x.

Schubert T.W. Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2005, 89(1), 1. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1.

Sera M.D. et al. When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2002, 131(3), 377. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.3.377.

Slepian M.L. et al. Shedding light on insight: Priming bright ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2010, 46(4), 696-700. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.009.

Sopory P., Dillard J.P. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta‐analysis. Human communication research. 2002, 28(3), 382-419. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x.

Steen G. Finding metaphor in discourse: Pragglejaz and beyond. 2007.

Thibodeau P.H. Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and Symbol. 2016, 31(2), 53-72. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756.

Thibodeau P.H., Boroditsky L. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS one. 2011, 6(2).

Thibodeau P.H., Boroditsky L. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS one. 2013, 8(1). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961.

Thibodeau P.H., Hendricks R.K., Boroditsky L. How linguistic metaphor scaffolds reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2017, 21(11), 852-863. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.07.001.

Tseng M. et al. “Searching for Happiness” or “Full of Joy”? Source Domain Activation Matters. Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. 2005, 31(1), 359-370.

Turner M., Lakoff G. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Journal of Women`s Health. 1989.

Turner M. Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. University of Chicago Press, 1987. 

Whorf B.L. // In J.B. Carroll (Ed.). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.  [Cambridge], 1956 (Original work published 1940).

Williams L.E., Bargh J.A. Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science. 2008, 322(5901), 606-607. DOI: 10.1126/science.1162548.

Wolff P., Gentner D. Structure‐mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive science. 2011, 35(8), 1456-1488. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x.

Yu N. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. John Benjamins Publishing, 1998. Т. 1.

Received 05 June 2020. Date of publication: 04 November 2020.

About author

Information about author
Migun Julia P. Research Associate, Cognitive Research Laboratory, Institute for Social Sciences, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Prospect Vernadskogo, 82, 119571 Moscow, Russia
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Migun J.P. The metaphorical relativity hypothesis: confirm or disprove? Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2020, Vol. 13, No. 73, p. 5. http://psystudy.ru (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2020v13n73/1833-migun73e.html

Back to top >>