Studies in children’s understanding of visual metaphor. A literature review from a cognitive semiotic perspective
Sara Lenninger, Kristianstad University
The use of metaphor is pervasive in human communication (Stites & Özçaliskan, 2012). However, in the literature there are many ways to define metaphors (e.g. Black 1954; Kirby 1997; Gibbs 2008). In this paper, the metaphor will be considered to be a sign, and in addition, as an instance of iconic sign use. This means, firstly, that metaphor is studied as a meaning construction based in a sign relation. In this context, a sign relation consists of something perceived as an expression for something else, which also is conceived as its corresponding meaning or “content” (Sonesson 2008). As a consequence, a sign relation always involves an interpreting subject. Secondly, it means that iconic relations are crucial to the definition of what the metaphor is. Consequently, the concept of iconic signs has to be explored. This is why developmental studies on metaphor use (and understanding) link to cognitive theories on metaphor thinking (Billow, 1975; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Kogan et al., 1980) and to semiotic theories of meaning relations and sign use. Children’s understanding of pictorial metaphor is a field of research which has received less study than, notably, verbal metaphors. Nevertheless, the present paper will review studies on children’s development of metaphor use departing from different approaches on what metaphor is, and with particular attention to pictorial metaphors.
Black, M. (1954). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series.55 (1954-1955), 273-294.
Billow, R. (1975). A Cognitive Developmental Study of Metaphor Comprehension. Developmental psychology, 11(4), 415-423.
Gibbs, R. W. (red.) (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press
Kirby, J. (1997). Aristotle on Metaphor. The American Journal of Philology, 118(4), 517-554.
Kogan, N., Connor, K., Gross, A., & Fava, F. (1980). Understanding visual metaphor: Developmental and individual differences. Monographs of the society for research in child developmental serial, No. 183, Vol. 45 (1).
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sonesson, G. (2008). Prolegomena to a general theory of iconicity. Considerations on language, gesture, and pictures. In K. Willems & L. De Cuypere (eds.) Naturalness and iconicity in language (pp.47-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stites, L., j., & Özçaliskan, S. (2012). On Learning to Draw the Distinction between Physical and Metaphorical Motion: Is Metaphor an Early Emerging Cognitive and Linguistic Capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32, 291–318.
|Status||Publicerad - 2018|
|Evenemang||3rd Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics: Multimodalities - |
Varaktighet: 1980-jan.-01 → …
|Konferens||3rd Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics: Multimodalities|
|Period||80-01-01 → …|
- Pedagogik (50301)
- Humaniora och konst (6)