Türkçe Metaforların İşlemlenmesi: Bir Göz İzleme Çalışması

Öz

İnsanın bilişsel sisteminin doğal bir ürünü olduğu kabul edilen metaforların işlemlenmesine ilişkin çalışmaların bir kısmı, metaforların süreç-dışında, bir kısmı da süreç-içinde nasıl işlemlendiğine odaklanmaktadır. Sessiz okuma sırasında davranışsal tepkilerin ölçüldüğü süreç-içi araştırmalar, kendi hızında okuma, göz izleme, beyin görüntüleme gibi farklı yöntemleri temel almaktadır. Bu araştırmada, sessiz okuma sırasında öntürsel ve öntürden uzak kavramlarla, farklı bilinirlik düzeylerindeki metaforların işlemlenmesi ele alınacaktır. Araştırmada, sessiz okuma sırasında öntürsel ve öntürden uzak kavramlara ve bilinirlik düzeyi yüksek olan ve olmayan metaforlara yönelik davranışsal tepkilerin sınanması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu çerçevede araştırmada, Türkçede sessiz okuma sırasında (a) öntürü temsil eden kavramların işlemlenmesi, (b) öntürden uzak kavramların işlemlenmesi, (c) bilinirlik düzeyi yüksek olan metaforların işlemlenmesi, (d) bilinirlik düzeyi düşük olan metaforların işlemlenmesi süreçlerinde göz izleme yöntemiyle ölçülen davranışsal tepkilerin neler olduğu sorularına yanıt aranmıştır. Araştırmada farklı katılımcılardan oluşan toplam üç deney gerçekleştirilmiştir. SMI RED 500 Hz göz izleme sistemiyle uygulanan deneylere hazırlayıcı olması amacıyla uygulanan davranışsal deneylerin de bulgularının tartışıldığı bu araştırmada, öntürden uzak kavramların öntürü temsil eden kavramlardan, bilinirlik düzeyi düşük olan metaforların bilinirlik düzeyi yüksek olan metaforlardan daha uzun sürede işlemlendiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• metafor,göz izleme,sabitleme,sessiz okuma,öntür,çevresel

Metaphor Processing in Turkish: An Eye-movement Study

Öz

Some studies about processing metaphors, which are accepted to be a natural product of the human cognitive system, focus on off-line processing where some focus on on-line processing of metaphors. Online studies where behavioral reactions are measured during silent reading are based on various methods such as self-paced reading, eye tracking and brain imaging techniques. This research will handle processing of prototypical and peripheral concepts and metaphors with varying degrees of familiarity during silent reading. This research aims to test behavioral reactions to prototypical and peripheral concepts and familiar and unfamiliar metaphors during silent reading. In this frame, behavioral reactions during silent reading in Turkish are measured by eye-tracking method trying to answer how (a) prototypical concepts are processed, (b) peripheral concepts are processed, (c) metaphors with a high degree of familiarity are processed, (d) metaphors with a low degree of familiarity are processed. To answer these questions two pilot experiments and one main experiment has been carried out with separate subjects. In the research, where the findings of behavioral experiments which are applied as preparation to the main experiment with SMI RED 500 Hz eye-tracking device are discussed as well, it is found that peripheral concepts are processed in a longer time compared to prototypical concepts, and metaphors with a low level of familiarity are processed in a longer time compared to metaphors with a high degree of familiarity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• metaphor,eye-movement,fixation,silent reading,prototypical

Kaynakça

1. Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity (3), 21-36.
2. Blasko, G. D. & Connie, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology (19), 295-308.
3. Bohrn, C.I., Altmann, U. & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language-A quantative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsycologica (50), 2669-2683.
4. Bortfeld, H. & McGlone, M.S. (2001). The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol (16)1-2, 75-86. Routledge.
5. Brisard, F., Frisson, S. & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Metaphor and Symbol (16)1-2, 87-108. Routledge.
6. Colston, H.L. & Gibbs, Jr.W. (2009). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol (17)1, 57-80. Routledge.
7. Columbus, G., Sheikh, A.N., Cote-Lecaldare, M. & Hauser, K. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An Eye-Movement Study of Sentence Reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (8), 10-57.
8. Frisson, S. & Pickering, M.J. (1999). Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (25)6, 1366-1383.

9. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for under specification. Metaphor and Symbol (16), 149-172.
10. Gibbs, R. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what speakers say and implicate. Journal of Pragmatics (34), 457-486. Elsevier.
11. Gibbs, R.W. & Colston, H.L. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge University Press.
12. Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative, thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Gibbs, R.W., & O’Brien, J.E. (1990). Idioms and mental maintaining beliefs is de-imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition (36), 35-68.
14. Giora, R. (2002). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science 17(11), 935-938.
16. Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison Fails. Mind & Language (21)3, 360-378.
17. Glucksberg, S. (1991). Literal meanings: The psychology of allusion. Psychological Science (2)3, 146-152.
18. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2), 92-96.
19. Gökçesu, B.S. (2009). Comparison, categorization, and metaphor comprehension. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 567-572). Cognitive Science Society.
20. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. (Eds. Matthew, Y., Traxler, J. & Morton, A). 2nd Edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
21. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. and Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50(3), 346-363. İbe Akcan, P. & Akkök, E. (2016). Non-literal meaning comprehension: A small-scale analysis on Turkish speakers. International Journal of Language & Linguistics (3)4, 65-78.
22. Iskandar, S. (2014). The metaphor interpretation test: Cognitive processes involved and age group differences in performance. PhD Thesis. University of Windsor, Canada.
23. Juhasz, B.J. & Pollatsek, A. (2011). Lexical influences on eye movements during reading. (Eds. Liversedge, S.P., Gilchrist, I.D. & Everling, S.). The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford University Press.
24. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: OUP.
25. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Lemaire, B. & Bianco, M. (2003). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension: Experiment and simulation. [Online] Available:http://webcom.upmf-grenoble.fr/LPNC/IMG/pdf/iccm03_lemaire.pdf (September 12, 2015).
27. Lowder, M.W. & Gordon, C.P. (2013). It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition (39)4, 993-1011.
28. Onishi, K.H. & Murphy, G.L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory & Cognition (21)6, 763-772. Springer.
29. Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E. & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor & Symbol (15)1-2, 47-61. Routledge.
30. Wilson, N.L. & Gibbs, R.W. Jr. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science (31)4, 721-31.