CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
6.2 Limitations and Future Study
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
between linguistic and spatio-motoric information, they may encode what is conveyed or not
conveyed in accompanying speech. Results from the current data show that many metaphoric
gestures synchronize with their associated speech, which supports the view of the Interface
Hypothesis more. Although most of the lexical affiliates of the metaphoric gestures are words,
a substantial portion has the gesture associated with a phrase rather than with a single word.
This portion of data provides evidence in contrast to the Lexical Semantic Hypothesis. In the
current data, over a half of the metaphoric expressions are gesture-only metaphors in which
language expresses the target-domain concepts and gesture expresses the sour-domain
concepts. Gesture-only metaphors reveal that the information encoded in speech and gesture
may differ from each other in conveying metaphors. This portion of data opposes to the
prediction of the Lexical Semantic Hypothesis but agrees with the Interface Hypothesis. In
general, results based on the current data support the Interface Hypothesis more than the
Lexical Semantic Hypothesis.
6.2 Limitations and Future Study
The investigation of the cross-modal expressions of metaphors can be extended in
future study to explore several issues which are not discussed in this thesis. The first issue is
how metaphors are embodied in daily experiences. Image schemas have been introduced to
the studies on metaphors (c.f., Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1987). Image schemas, the recurring
dynamic patterns of our sensory-motor experience, are seen as the primary sources of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
metaphors. The present study also incorporates the notion of image schema to categorize the
source-domain concepts. Scholars proposed that some schemas are more general and cover
more specific schemas (Johnson 1987; Cienki 1997; Clausner & Croft 1999; Santibáñez
2002). Nevertheless, this thesis merely employs the image schemas at the general level (e.g.,
OBJECT, SPACE, and FORCE) to investigate the sources. According to past studies (Clausner
& Croft 1999; Santibáñez 2002), the image schemas in the specific level comprise more
specific embodied patterns, and they can profile different aspects of the image schemas at a
general level. To see the common experiential bases of metaphors, both the image schemas in
the general and specific levels should be taken into account for further study. The second
issue is associated with the semantic coordination of speech and gesture. In this thesis, we
have discussed a case in which different metaphor types are expressed in language and
gesture (c.f., Example 5 in Chapter 3). Since expressions are rare in the current data, we need
to find more expressions where different metaphors are expressed across modalities in the
future study. Moreover, the present study does not put emphasis on the details about how
information is conveyed in the expressions with the same type of metaphors across modalities.
Although language and gesture manifest the same type of metaphors, the two modalities may
profile different aspects of the same concept. In the current data, we can find the instances
that different aspects are profiled by the same type of metaphors in language and gesture. A
speaker utters néngliàng nàmo dài ‘the power is so big’ to represent POWER in terms of the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
entity metaphor POWER IS OBJECT.The speaker simultaneously makes the gesture imagery
of an object supported in hand to enact the entity metaphor POWER IS OBJECT. The size of an
object is profiled in language; however, the speaker’s manual representation merely focuses
on the boundary of an object without referring to the size. In this case, the information
encoded in speech is not equivalent to information encoded in gesture. To explore how
language and gesture cooperate to convey metaphors, we need to consider not only the
metaphor types but also the profiled aspect in the two modalities in future study.
Simultaneously, we are able to discuss the hypotheses of speech-gesture production from
another perspective by examining whether semantic aspects profiled by the metaphors in
language and gesture are the same or not. In addition, we find more entity metaphor in the
group of metaphors conveyed in gesture only in the current data. It is likely that gesture can
easily provide a boundary for a concept to emphasize that concept. The present study,
however, does not discuss the occasion for linguistic and gestural metaphors to occur together
and the occasion for gestural metaphors to occur exclusively. Such an issue may relate to the
semantic coordination of speech and gesture and need to be explored in future research.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
122
REFERENCES
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59:
617-645.
Butterworth, Brain & Hadar, U. (1989). Gesture, speech, and computational stages: A reply to
McNeill. Psychological Review, 96(1): 168-174.
Calbris, Geneviève. 2008. From left to right...: Converbal gestures and their symbolic use of
space. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 27-53.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chui, Kawai. 2011. Conceptual metaphors in gesture. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3): 437-458.
Chui, Kawai. 2013. Gesture and embodiment in Chinese discourse. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics, 41(1): 52-63.
Chui, Kawai & Huei-ling Lai. 2008. The NCCU corpus of spoken Chinese: Mandarin, Hakka,
and Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 6(2): 119-144.
Cienki, Alan. 1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In Marjolijn Verspoor,
Kee Dong Lee, & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the
Construction of Meaning, 3-15. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric
expressions. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and Cognition, 189-204. California:
CSLI Publications.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
123
Cienki, Alan. 2005. Image schemas and gesture. In Beate Hampe & Joseph E. Grady (eds.),
From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 421-441. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Cienki, Alan. 2008. Why study metaphor and gesture. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller
(eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 5-25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cienki, Alan. & Cornelia Müller. 2008. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Raymond W.
Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 483-501. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, Timothy & William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive
Linguistics, 10: 1-31.
Davidson, Donald. 1978. What Metaphors Mean. Critical Inquiry, 5(1): 31-47.
de Ruiter, Jan Peter. 2000. The production of gesture and speech. In David McNeill (ed.),
Language and gesture, 284-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino, & Susanna Cumming. 1992.
Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane Anne Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.)
Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, 45-89. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2005. Embodiment in metaphorical imagination. In Diane Pecher &
Rolf A. Zwaan (eds.), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
124
Memory, Language, and Thinking, 65-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2008a. Metaphor and gesture: Some implications for psychology. In
Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 291-301.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2008b. Metaphor and thought: the state of the art. In Raymond W.
Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 3-13. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W., Josephine M. Bogdonvich, Jeffrey R. Sykes, & Dale J. Barr. 1997.
Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 141-154.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W., Paula Lenz Costa Lima, & Edson Francozo. 2004. Metaphor is
grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1189-1210.
Glanberg, Arthur M. & Michael P. Kaschak. 2002. Grounding language in action.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3): 558-565.
Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hampe, Beate. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In Beate Hampe
& Joseph E. Grady (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
125
Linguistics, 1-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hauk, Olaf, Ingrid Johnsrude, & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2004. Somatotopic representation
of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41: 301-307.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reason. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In Beate Hampe &
Joseph E. Grady (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive
Linguistics, 15-33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding.
Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Katamba, Francis & John Stonham. 2006. Morphology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kita, Sotaro and Asli Özyürekb. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic
coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of
spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1): 16-32.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York : Oxford University
Press.
Krauss, Robert M., Yihsiu Chen, & Purnima Chawla. 1996. Nonverbal behavior and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
126
nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? In Mark P.
Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 389-450. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Krauss, Robert M., Yihsiu Chen, & Rebecca F. Gottesman. 2000. Lexical gestures and lexical
access: A process model. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and Gesture, 261-283.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1993. The axiological parameter in preconceptional schema. In
Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental
Process in Language, 305-329. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew. Ortony (ed.),
Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980a. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The
Journal of Philposophy, 77(8): 453-486.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980b.The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual
system. Cognitive Science, 4: 195-208.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980c. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
127
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Afterwords. In Metaphors We Live By (2nd ed.),
243-274. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landis, Richard J. & Gray G. Koch (1977). "The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data". Biometrics, 33 (1): 159–174.
Levelt, Willem. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Lin, Chingyuan. 2003. The Metaphors and Metonymies of Body Parts in Taiwanese Southern
Min. M.A. Thesis. National Chung Cheng University.
Liu, Ya-ling. 2010. Journey Metaphor in Taiwan Mandarin Pop Songs by Indigenous Singers.
M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan University.
Mandler, Jean M. 1992. How to build a baby: II. conceptual primitives. Psychological Review,
99(4): 587-604.
McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92(3):
350-371.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gesture Reveal About Thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David. 2008. Unexpected metaphors. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.),
Metaphor and Gesture, 155-170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
128
McNeill, David. & Susan D. Ducan. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In David
McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141-161. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mittelberg, Irene. 2008. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in
gestural representations of grammar. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.),
Metaphor and Gesture, 115-154. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Müller, Cornelia. 2008. What gestures reveal about nature of metaphor. In Alan Cienki &
Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, 219-245. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Murphy, Gregory. 1996. On metaphoric representations. Cognition, 60: 173-204.
Murphy, Gregory. 1997. Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphorical
representation. Cognition, 62: 99-108.
Núñez, Rafel. 2008. A fresh look at the foundations of mathematics: Gesture and the
psychological reality of conceptual metaphor. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.),
Metaphor and Gesture, 93-114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language
about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164-189. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Santibáñez, Francisco. 2002. The object image-schema and other dependent schemas.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
129
Atlantis, 24(2): 183-201.
Searle, John R. 1979. Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 84-111.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to speech. In J. Maxwell Atkinson
& John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis,
266-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, Dan I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting
of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435-444.
Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In John J.
Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 70-96.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion and change in language and perception. In Paul Bloom,
Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space,
211-276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wang, Kuo-shu. 2010. Love Metaphors in Taiwan Mandarin Lyrics since the 90s: A Metaphor
Network Model Approach. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan University.
Wilson, Margaret. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
9(4): 625-636.
Wilson, Nicole L. & Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. 2007. Real and imagined body movement
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
130
primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31: 721-731.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
賴玲玉。2011。《台語流行歌詞中的愛情隱喻(1980-2010)》。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。