A Study of the Use of Iconic and Metaphoric Gestures with Motion-Based, Static Space-Based, Static Object-Based, and Static Event-Based Statements.

Omid Khatin-Zadeh, Danyal Farsani, Hassan Banaruee
Author Information
  1. Omid Khatin-Zadeh: School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China. ORCID
  2. Danyal Farsani: Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
  3. Hassan Banaruee: Department of English, American, and Celtic Studies, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany. ORCID

Abstract

In this article, we extend our previously suggested categorization of metaphors to literal statements, and categorize metaphorical and literal statements into four pairs of corresponding metaphorical and literal statements: (1) motion-based metaphorical/literal statements; (2) static space-based metaphorical/literal statements; (3) static object-based metaphorical/literal statements; (4) static event-based metaphorical/literal statements. Then, we report a study that investigated the use of metaphoric and iconic gestures with these corresponding categories during the retelling of a set of stories by a group of thirty participants. The participants listened to five audio short stories. Each story contained one statement of each metaphoric category and one statement of each literal category. After listening to each story, they retold it in their own language in front of a camera. The results showed that event-based metaphors and event-based literal statements were accompanied by the smallest number of metaphoric and iconic gestures. Furthermore, there was a significant similarity between each metaphorical category and its corresponding literal category in the number of gestures that were used with these categories. This similarity supports the idea that the mechanisms underlying the embodiment of metaphorical and literal statements are essentially similar.

Keywords

References

  1. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 May;22(3):455-79 [PMID: 21038261]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):92-96 [PMID: 12584028]
  3. J Psycholinguist Res. 2021 Aug;50(4):923-948 [PMID: 33389395]
  4. Mem Cognit. 2021 Apr;49(3):557-570 [PMID: 33140133]
  5. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Dec 14;7(4): [PMID: 29240715]
  6. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Jun;26(3):721-752 [PMID: 30511231]
  7. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Sep;8(5):573-85 [PMID: 26173215]
  8. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Apr;11(4):264-74 [PMID: 20216547]
  9. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):495-514 [PMID: 18567247]
  10. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Apr 29;12(5): [PMID: 35621426]

Grants

  1. The APC was funded by NTNU./The APC was funded by NTNU.

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0statementsliteralstaticmetaphoricalmetaphorical/literalevent-basedmetaphoriccategorycorrespondingiconicgesturesStaticmetaphorsmotion-basedspace-basedobject-basedcategoriesstoriesparticipantsstoryonestatementnumbersimilaritygesturearticleextendpreviouslysuggestedcategorizationcategorizefourpairsstatements:1234reportstudyinvestigateduseretellingsetgroupthirtylistenedfiveaudioshortcontainedlisteningretoldlanguagefrontcameraresultsshowedaccompaniedsmallestFurthermoresignificantusedsupportsideamechanismsunderlyingembodimentessentiallysimilarStudyUseIconicMetaphoricGesturesMotion-BasedSpace-BasedObject-BasedEvent-BasedStatements

Similar Articles

Cited By