Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (12) : 1306-1317     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01306
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Processing of Chinese homophonic two-part allegoric sayings: Effects of familiarity and homophone
MA Lijun1(),MA Yunxiao1,HE Xiaoqing2,LIU Haitao2,ZHANG Jingyu3,4()
1 Department of Psychology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510006, China
2 School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
3 International School, Guangdong Food and Drug Vocational College, Guangzhou 510520, China
4 School of Interpreting & Translation Studies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510420, China
Download: PDF(632 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

Two-part allegorical sayings are a typical language form in Chinese. Understanding two-part allegorical saying involves the ability to understand figurative meanings. Chinese two-part allegorical sayings convey figurative meanings by activating either homophonic or conceptual associations. Homophonic associations are realized based on a conceptual connection between the two homophonic expressions: the second part of the sayings and the expression of the idiomatic meaning. Within the example of Lao tai tai shang ji wo (老太太上鸡窝)—ben dan (笨蛋), a situation is described as an old lady (lao tai tai or老太太) is about to walk towards a henhouse (shang ji wo or上鸡窝), which is reflected in the second part that the purpose of doing this is “heading for eggs” (ben dan or奔蛋). The intended interpretation of the saying “an idiot” (ben dan or笨蛋) could not be worked out without the help of a very crucial apparatus—sound association; that is, “heading for eggs” is pronounced the same with “an idiot” in Chinese with respect to the same segmental combinations and tone patterns. Within the paradigm of sound association, the meaning identified in the source domain (the first part; in our example, the old lady’s behavior) is also observed in the target domain (the second part; in our example, the figurative meaning of the old lady’s behavior) in a metaphoric way through mapping between the two domains, resulting in a shifting from a concrete concept to an abstract one. Mapping, which was described by Lakoff and Johnson in their Conceptual Metaphor Theory, has been considered a powerful theory in interpreting metaphors. Fauconnier proposed Conceptual Blending Theory, emphasizing that mapping happens across spaces via connecting counterparts in the input mental spaces. In our example, it connects one mental space contained the image of an old lady walking towards a henhouse and another mental space describing the purpose of carrying out this behavior. Then the mapping happens when the mental apparatus identifies the sound similarity and generates the intended meaning. Meanwhile, the knowledge of recognizing implicature (Xu, 2005) in pragmatic inference also plays a crucial role in processing two-part allegorical sayings. From this perspective, Chinese two-part allegorical sayings are one of the ideal languages. The successful understanding of them couldn’t be accomplished without considering how people interpret in their real usage. There are three theories relevant to interpreting of Chines two-part allegorical sayings, but what we wonder is which theory is more powerful in explaining the processing of homophonic two-part allegorical sayings in terms of various degrees? Does sound association play a crucial role in the processing? In order to answer these questions, two experiments were designed by using eye-movement instrument: experiment 1 investigated the effect of various degrees of familiarity on the processing of two different types of back parts (homophonic association/ phonography), for example, 老太太上鸡窝—奔蛋 is phonography because there is no metaphoric inference between front and back parts, but老太太上鸡窝—笨蛋 is with homophonic association because the implied meaning (笨蛋) is inferred from the words (奔蛋) through sound similarity. We asked the participants to judge the semantic relatedness between front and back parts and we found that the judgment was determined by the type of back parts, that is, the homophone facilitated the participants’ judgment because of the sound association; while phonography forced participants to infer the implied meaning of the sayings. Meanwhile, participants took longer time to process the sayings with high familiarity and made more errors in the judgment task, the reason of which might be caused by the negative effect of long-term memory. The result supported the Conceptual Metaphor theory and Conceptual Blending theory. However, participants adopted a quite different processing strategy called the on-line processing strategy when the sayings were with low familiarity. The result supported the Pragmatic Inference theory. Experiment 2 investigated how various intonations affected the judgment of semantic relatedness between front and back parts. The results showed that the characters with the same sound pattern but not with the same intonation (e.g. 笨、本、奔) exerted different influences on the judgment. Specifically, the character “本”, which does not fit into the meaning of any of the two parts, did not play a role in the processing. The result does not support the Conceptual Blending theory.

Keywords homophonic two-part allegoric sayings      eye-movement      concept metaphor theory      conceptual blending theory      pragmatic inference theory     
ZTFLH:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: Lijun MA,Jingyu ZHANG     E-mail: malj@gzucm.edu.cn;zhangjy@gdyzy.edu.cn
Issue Date: 21 October 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Lijun MA
Yunxiao MA
Xiaoqing HE
Haitao LIU
Jingyu ZHANG
Cite this article:   
Lijun MA,Yunxiao MA,Xiaoqing HE, et al. Processing of Chinese homophonic two-part allegoric sayings: Effects of familiarity and homophone[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(12): 1306-1317.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01306     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I12/1306
语义性质 低熟悉度 高熟悉度 t
熟悉度 1.89 (0.29) 3.02 (0.59) -8.29
可表象度 4.34 (0.56) 4.64 (0.61) -1.68
语义一致度 4.40 (0.64) 4.68 (0.67) -1.45
预测度 0.04 (0.07) 0.07 (0.10) -1.23
前一语节笔画数 43.65 (12.34) 44.26 (9.65) -0.19
后一语节(同音)笔画数 21.39 (7.39) 23.35 (7.35) -0.90
后一语节(谐音)笔画数 21.09 (7.24) 22.48 (8.44) -0.60
同音字笔画数 9.65 (3.26) 8.87 (2.14) 0.96
谐音字笔画数 9.35 (3.73) 7.96 (2.88) 1.42
前一语节长度 5.70 (1.11) 5.43 (0.99) 0.84
后一语节长度 2.65 (0.98) 3.17 (1.07) -1.72
同音字书写概率 0.77 (0.24) 0.83 (0.20) -0.88
  
反应
指标
高熟悉-
同音字
高熟悉-
谐音字
低熟悉-
同音字
低熟悉-
谐音字
反应时 2165 (371) 2427 (474) 2223 (380) 2278 (408)
错误率 0.17 (0.15) 0.33 (0.13) 0.19 (0.13) 0.25 (0.13)
  
眼动指标 高熟悉-同音字 高熟悉-谐音字 低熟悉-同音字 低熟悉-谐音字
前语节 后语节 前语节 后语节 前语节 后语节 前语节 后语节
总注视时间(ms) 1336 (212) 738 (182) 1443 (264) 816 (208) 1324 (274) 789 (180) 1372 (232) 803 (202)
总注视次数 6.80 (1.19) 3.23 (0.82) 7.55 (1.33) 3.34 (0.78) 7.20 (1.65) 3.40 (0.82) 7.02 (1.13) 3.28 (0.81)
首次注视时间(ms) 232 (49) 258 (61) 223 (51) 258 (63) 214 (45) 252 (51) 229 (44) 262 (68)
首次凝视时间(ms) 720 (223) 515 (137) 715 (219) 497 (179) 689 (211) 521 (161) 668 (183) 521 (155)
首次凝视次数 3.82 (1.05) 2.17 (0.52) 3.83 (0.88) 2.00 (0.46) 3.78 (1.11) 2.21 (0.55) 3.56 (0.88) 2.10 (0.48)
第二次注视时间(ms) 169 (38) 227 (52) 165 (31) 240 (77) 177 (36) 235 (53) 173 (45) 239 (57)
第二次凝视时间(ms) 539 (169) 396 (162) 608 (159) 389 (130) 524 (127) 429 (226) 573 (154) 400 (124)
第二次凝视次数 2.62 (0.77) 1.78 (0.48) 2.98 (0.70) 1.73 (0.49) 2.68 (0.70) 1.92 (0.78) 2.79 (0.69) 1.73 (0.43)
  
同音字性质 同音字组 错误同音字组 t
同音字频率 0.02 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.03 0.62
同音字笔画数 8.65 ± 3.37 9.87 ± 3.14 -1.79
  
反应指标 不呈现同音字 呈现同音字 呈现错误同音字
反应时 2077 (379) 2001 (325) 2152 (367)
错误率 0.27 (0.14) 0.12 (0.10) 0.31 (0.18)
  
眼动指标 不呈现同音字 呈现同音字 呈现错误同音字
前语节 后语节 前语节 后语节 前语节 后语节
总注视时间(ms) 812 (119) 748 (153) 771 (110) 769 (149) 791 (116) 820 (110)
总注视次数 4.32 (0.73) 3.42 (0.60) 4.15 (0.61) 3.58 (0.64) 4.21 (0.65) 3.87 (0.63)
首次注视时间(ms) 186 (37) 253 (53) 186 (39) 241 (38) 185 (39) 235 (36)
首次进入时间(ms) 262 (88) 749 (173) 288 (100) 723 (157) 266 (104) 755 (181)
首次凝视时间(ms) 448 (76) 512 (154) 428 (75) 550 (142) 434 (82) 586 (124)
首次凝视次数 2.53 (0.45) 2.26 (0.44) 2.47 (0.40) 2.50 (0.52) 2.51 (0.46) 2.71 (0.50)
  
[1] Bai X. J., Ma J., Li X., Lian K. Y., Tan K., Yang Y., & Liang F. F . (2019). The efficiency and improvement of novel word’s learning in Chinese children with developmental dyslexia during natural reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 471-483.
[1] [ 白学军, 马杰, 李馨, 连坤予, 谭珂, 杨宇, 梁菲菲 . (2019). 发展性阅读障碍儿童的新词习得及其改善. 心理学报, 51(4), 471-483.]
[2] Balconi M., & Amenta S . (2010). “A Fighter is a lion”. Neuropsychological indexes in comprehending frozen metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3246-3257.
[3] Beijing language college language instruction institute. (1986). Modern Chinese frequency dictionary. Beijing: Beijing language college Press.
[3] [ 北京语言学院语言教学研究所. (1986). 现代汉语频率词典. 北京: 北京语言学院出版社.]
[4] Chen C. S . (2016). Formation mechanism and dynamic features of the semantic structure of two-part allegorical sayings. Journal of Shandong Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 61(2), 148-156.
[4] [ 陈长书 . (2016). 歇后语语义结构的形成机制和动态特点. 山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 61(2), 148-156.]
[5] Fauconnier G . (1994). Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 63(1), 142.
[6] He A. J . (2011). A new comment on research of two-part allegorical sayings: an option from philosophy of mind. Modern Foreign Languages, 34(4), 356-363.
[6] [ 何爱晶 . (2011). 歇后语研究新论——心智哲学的观点. 现代外语, 34(4), 356-363.]
[7] Jiang G. Y., & Li H . (2011). Advances in conceptual metaphor studies in neuroscience: a focus on the issue of psychological reality. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43(6), 934-941.
[7] [ 江桂英, 李恒 . (2011). 概念隐喻研究在神经科学中的新进展——以心理现实性问题为例. 外语教学与研究, 43(6), 934-941.]
[8] Lai H. L . (2008). Understanding and classifying two-part allegorical sayings: metonymy, metaphor, and cultural constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 454-474.
[9] Libben M. R., & Titone D. A . (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103-1121.
[10] Ma L. J., & Liang J. Y . (2019). The semantic property and inner relationship of Cantonese xiehouyu: comparing with the data of Chinese language xiehouyu. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), (1), 121-128.
[10] [ 马利军, 梁俊煜 . (2019). 粤语歇后语语义性质及其内部关系研究——兼与汉语歇后语数据对比. 广州大学学报(社会科学版), (1), 121-128.]
[11] Ma L. J., & Zhang J. J . (2016a). Mapping model within phonetic metaphors: The role homonym plays in understanding homophonic two-part allegorical sayings. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (2), 76-84.
[11] [ 马利军, 张积家 . (2016a). 语音隐喻映射中介--同音字在谐音型歇后语理解中的作用. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), (2), 76-84.]
[12] Ma L. J., & Zhang J. J . (2016b). The interaction between the preceding and the concluding parts of bi-part Chinese allegorical sayings. Journal of Soochow University (Educational Science Edition), 4(3), 86-95.
[12] [ 马利军, 张积家 . (2016b). 汉语歇后语前、后语节相互作用关系研究. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 4(3), 86-95.]
[13] Mashal N . (2013). The role of working memory in the comprehension of unfamiliar and familiar metaphors. Language & Cognition, 5(4), 409-436.
[14] Monetta L., Ouellet-Plamondon C., & Joanette Y . (2007). Age-related changes in the processing of the metaphorical alternative meanings of words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(4), 277-284.
[15] Qu Q. Q., Liu W. L., & Li X. S . (2018). The functional unit of phonological encoding in Chinese spoken production: study on phonemes. Advances in Psychological Sciences, 26(9), 1535-1544.
[15] [ 屈青青, 刘维琳, 李兴珊 . (2018). 汉语言语产生的语音加工单元——基于音位的研究. 心理科学进展, 26(9), 1535-1544.]
[16] Rossetti I., Brambilla P., & Papagno C . (2018). Metaphor comprehension in schizophrenic patients. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 670.
[17] Shu D. F. (2008). An introduction to cognitive semantics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[17] [ 束定芳 . (2008). 认知语义学. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社.]
[18] Shu D. F . (2017). A new probe into the structures and functions of xiehouyu. Contemporary Rhetoric, (2), 12-21.
[18] [ 束定芳 . (2017). 歇后语的结构与功能再探. 当代修辞学, (2), 12-21.]
[19] Wen Z. D. (2011). Chinese dictionary of allegorical sayings. Shanghai: Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House.
[19] [ 温端政 . (2011). 中国歇后语大辞典. 上海:
[20] Wu K . (2002). 9000 allegorical sayings. Fuzhou: Strait literature and Art Publishing House.
[20] [ 吴可 . (2002). 歇后语9000条. 福州: 海峡文艺出版社.]
[21] Xu S. H . (2005). Cognitive approach to pragmatic inference. Foreign Languages in China,(5), 10-16.
[21] [ 徐盛桓 . (2005). 语用推理的认知研究. 中国外语, (5), 10-16.]
[22] Yan G. L., Xiong J. P., Zang C. L., Yu L. L., Cui L., & Bai X. J . (2013). Review of eye-movement measures in reading research. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(4), 589-605.
[22] [ 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军 . (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 589-605.]
[23] Yang F. G., Fuller J., Khodaparast N., & Krawczyk D. C . (2010). Figurative language processing after traumatic brain injury in adults: a preliminary study. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 1923-1929.
[24] Zhang H . (2016). Idiom representation and processing: a neurocognitive approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[24] [ 张辉 . (2016). 熟语表征与加工的神经认知研究. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社.]
[25] Zhang H., & Jiang L . (2012). A cognitive linguistic interpretation of representation and comprehension of two-part allegorical sayings. Journal of University of Shanghai for Sciences and Technology, 34(3), 193-197.
[25] [ 张辉, 江龙 . (2012). 歇后语表征和理解的认知语言学解读. 上海理工大学学报(社科版), 34(3), 193-197.]
[26] Zhang H., Jiang L., Gu J., & Yang Y . (2013). Electrophysiological insights into the processing of figurative two-part allegorical sayings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(4), 421-439.
[27] Zhou R . (2002). Research of mental representation of metaphor. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4), 271-277.
[27] [ 周榕 . (2002). 隐喻表征性质研究. 外语教学与研究, 34(4), 271-277.]
[28] Zou C. L., & Zhang W. W . (2016). Topological interpretation to two-part allegorical sayings. Foreign Language Research, (4), 83-88.
[28] [ 邹春玲, 张维伟 . (2016). 歇后语的拓扑解析. 外语学刊, (4), 83-88.]
[1] SUN Juncai; SHI Rong. Attentional bias to crying facial expressions: Evidence from eye movements[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(2): 155-163.
[2] HE Wenguang, ZHAO Xiaojing, SHEN Lanyu.  Cognitive style has strong influence on ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidences from eye-movement tracking[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1494-1503.
[3] KOU Hui; SU Yanhua; LUO Xiaochun; CHEN Hong. Attentional Bias Toward Face-related Words Among Females with Facial Negative Physical Self: Evidence from An Eye-movement Study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(10): 1213-1222.
[4] ZHANG Zhi-Jun,LIU Zhi-Fang,ZHAO Ya-Jun,JI Jing. The Locations of Word Segmentation in Chinese Reading: Research Based on the Eye-Movement-Contingent Display Technique[J]. , 2012, 44(1): 51-62.
[5] LI Shou-Xin,XU Zeng-Jie,CHEN Hui-Yuan.
Eye Movements of Individuals with Different Cognitive Styles while Reading Text with Distraction
[J]. , 2010, 42(05): 539-546.
[6] WANG Sui-Ping,TONG Xiu-Hong,YANG Jin-Mian,LENG Ying. Semantic Codes are Obtained before Word Fixation in Chinese Sentence Reading: Evidence from Eye-movements[J]. , 2009, 41(03): 220-232.
[7] Wang-Suiping,Chen-Hsuan-Chih,Yang-Jinmian,Wu-Yan,Wang-Ruiming. Immediacy of Integration in Reading Chinese[J]. , 2006, 38(05): 645-653.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech