Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:35:58.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2005

ŞEYDA ÖZÇALIŞKAN
ŞEYDA ÖZÇALIŞKAN
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Situated within the framework of the conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), this study investigated young children's understanding of metaphorical extensions of spatial motion. Metaphor was defined as a conceptual-linguistic mapping between a source and a target domain. The study focused on metaphors that are structured by the source domain of motion in space (e.g. time flies by, ideas pass through one's mind, sickness crawls through one's body). The study investigated whether metaphor comprehension varied by the age of the participant, target domain of the metaphorical mapping, and the conventionality of the linguistic form with which the metaphor was conveyed. Data were gathered using a story comprehension task and a semi-structured interview from 60 monolingual Turkish-speaking children, at the mean ages 3;6, 4;5 and 5;5 (20 participants per age group), and 20 adult native speakers of Turkish. The results showed metaphor understanding to be an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 291 - 318
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was jointly supported by a Chancellor's Dissertation Fellowship and a Mellon Grant from the University of California, Berkeley to the author. I thank Dan I. Slobin, Alison Gopnik, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Eve Sweetser, and George Lakoff for their insightful thoughts about the study, and the two reviewers for their helpful comments on the paper.