نگاشت حوزه‌ای یا نگاشت طرح‌واره‌ای؟! چگونگی فرافکنی حوزۀ مبدا استعاره‌ بر حوزۀ مقصد: بازشناسی کوتاه‌مدت دیداری و شنیداری

هدف از پژوهش حاضر، نشان دادن این نکته است که طرح وارۀ حوزۀ مبدا استعاره هایِ مفهومی، در حوزۀ مقصد آن ها نیز شکل می گیرد و بر آن اثرگذار است. به این منظور، تعداد 3 متن کوتاه استعاره ای و 3 متن متناظر غیر استعاره ای آن ها در نرم افزار سایکوپای، در دو نسخۀ دیداری و شنیداری طراحی شد و 47 نفر از افراد پس از خواندن/ شنیدن متن ها، در معرض بازشناسی کوتاه مدت آن ها قرار گرفتند. داده های به دست آمده، با استفاده از نرم افزار اس.پی.اس.اس. 23 تحلیل شد و نتایج نشان داد که آثاری از طرح وارۀ اصلی متن غیراستعاره ایِ متناظر با متن استعاره ای، در متن استعاره ای نیز به چشم می خورد. این یافته ما را به این فرض نزدیک می کند که در استعاره ها این طرح وارۀ حوزۀ مبدا است که بر حوزۀ مقصد فرا فکنده می شود و آن استعاره را قابل فهم تر می سازد.

Domain mapping or schematic mapping?! How source domain in metaphor projects on target domain: visual and auditory short term recognition

The nature of metaphor, metaphoric understanding, and its functions have been recognized as three main issues in research and theoretical formulations on metaphor and metaphor processing. In general, metaphor is defined as understanding and experiencing one thing based on another. Metaphor can also be considered as an expression that has two conceptual domains in which one of the domains is experienced and understood according to the other. These two conceptual domains are known as target domain and source domain. In this study, we examine the relationship between conceptual metaphor and formation of a schema in short texts regarding target and source domains. The main tools of the study were the texts written in fluent Persian and divided into two categories of metaphorical texts and their equivalent nonmetaphorical versions. Both texts have had a shared schema. Furthermore, the number of words were equal in both texts. For this purpose, 3 metaphorical and 3 equivalent nonmetaphorical short texts were designed in Psychopy software in 2 visual and auditory versions and 47 people were exposed to the shortterm recognition after reading/listening to it. There were eight texts including 3 metaphorical and 3 nonmetaphorical ones plus 2 texts that were used as filler texts which were excluded from the final analyses. The texts were organized in such a manner that the metaphorical text played before its corresponding nonmetaphorical text with an interval. At the next round, the nonmetaphorical text was played before its metaphorical version. The sample was selected through convenience sampling which included 80 twenty to twentyfiveyearold students of Foreign Languages School and Management School of Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran. Since variations in memory capacity can affect the test results, they were given a Persian word recognition test to ensure relative consistency among all participants' memory capacity. The test processes in the visual and auditory tests were the same except in the method of presenting the texts on the screen or playing through the headphone. In this study, descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used for analyzing the data and providing tentative answers to the research questions. All the analyses were implemented SPSS V.23 software. To analyse the data in each of the visual and auditory tasks separately, Friedman nonparameter test was used. For comparing the data of the visual and auditory tasks, MannWhitney test was used. Results indicated that in metaphorical texts, there are traces of the nonmetaphorical text`s main schema. This finding brings us closer to the assumption that it is source domain`s schema that projects on target domain in metaphors and makes it more understandable.