Volume 10, Issue 2 (2022)
Health Educ Health Promot 2022, 10(2): 233-238 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Raiisi F. Cognitive Analysis of Quality of Life Metaphors from the Perspective of Health Promotion Students. Health Educ Health Promot 2022; 10 (2) :233-238
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-55358-en.html
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-55358-en.html
Cognitive Science of Language Department, Institute of Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1287 Views)
Aims: The purpose of this study was the cognitive analysis of quality of life conceptual metaphors from the perspective of health promotion students of Tehran University.
Participant & Methods: This qualitative study was conducted on 35 health promotion students of Tehran Medical University through cognitive analysis in 2021. They were selected by the purposive sampling method. Participants were asked to compare the dimensions of quality of life (WHO-36) to what they perceived. Their conversation was recorded and collected by WhatsApp voice recording. The population of 946 metaphorical phrases was obtained. According to the theoretical saturation rule, 300 phrases were selected purposively. Phrases and sentences in which the quality of life was metaphorically expressed were manually separated and categorized.
Findings: The results showed that there were 8 salient source domains for quality of life. They respectively included object, place or location, path, direction, product, strength and power, human, and money. There were different metaphorical mappings for each source domain. Moving and edible objects were the most mapping for “quality of life is the object”.
Conclusion: It seems that quality of life can be understood and conceptualized as material things according to the embodiment rule. This fact has cultural roots as well. Paying attention to the leads to quality of life promotion.
Participant & Methods: This qualitative study was conducted on 35 health promotion students of Tehran Medical University through cognitive analysis in 2021. They were selected by the purposive sampling method. Participants were asked to compare the dimensions of quality of life (WHO-36) to what they perceived. Their conversation was recorded and collected by WhatsApp voice recording. The population of 946 metaphorical phrases was obtained. According to the theoretical saturation rule, 300 phrases were selected purposively. Phrases and sentences in which the quality of life was metaphorically expressed were manually separated and categorized.
Findings: The results showed that there were 8 salient source domains for quality of life. They respectively included object, place or location, path, direction, product, strength and power, human, and money. There were different metaphorical mappings for each source domain. Moving and edible objects were the most mapping for “quality of life is the object”.
Conclusion: It seems that quality of life can be understood and conceptualized as material things according to the embodiment rule. This fact has cultural roots as well. Paying attention to the leads to quality of life promotion.
Keywords: Metaphor [MeSH], Quality of Life [MeSH], Health Promotion [MeSH], Cognitive Science [MeSH]
Article Type: Qualitative Research |
Subject:
Quality of Life
Received: 2021/09/4 | Accepted: 2022/01/3 | Published: 2022/06/10
Received: 2021/09/4 | Accepted: 2022/01/3 | Published: 2022/06/10
References
1. Cook E, Wood L. Health psychology: the basics. London: Routledge; 2021. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315447766]
2. Thi Ngan N, Huy Khoi B. Factors influencing on quality of life: model selection by AIC. Inte J Psychosoc Rehabil. 2020;24(2):163-71. [Link] [DOI:10.37200/IJPR/V24I2/PR200319]
3. Fadrná T. Mikšová Z, Herzig R, Langová K, Ličman L, Školoudík D. Factors influencing quality of life in patients followed in the neurosonology laboratory for carotid stenosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;(16):79. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12955-018-0902-2]
4. Phyo AZZ, Freak-Poli R, Craig H, Gasevic D, Stocks NP, Gonzalez-Chica DA, et al. Quality of life and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1596. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9]
5. Raiisi F, Tehranizadeh M, Amini F. Determining the contribution of quality of life for addicts based on family communication pattern and spiritual intelligence. Health Educ Health Promot. 2020;8(3):155-60. [Link]
6. Raiisi F. The relationships between pain perception and quality of life in addicts. Int J Musculoskelet Pain Prev. 2020;5(2):350-6. [Link] [DOI:10.52547/ijmpp.5.2.350]
7. Lakoff G. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony A, editor. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013]
8. Kövecses Z. Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Ann Rev Cogn Linguist. 2008;6(1):168-84. [Link] [DOI:10.1075/arcl.6.08kov]
9. Raiisi F, Afrashi A, Nematzadeh SH, Moghadasin M. Conceptual metaphors of time in Persian: a cognitive and corpus-based approach. J West Iran Lang Dialects. 2020;8 (28):15-29. [Persian] [Link]
10. Raiisi F. Conceptual metaphors of pain in Persian: a cognitive analysis. Int J Musculoskelet Pain Prev. 2021;6(2):496-501. [Link] [DOI:10.52547/ijmpp.6.2.496]
11. Kövecses Z. Levels of metaphor. Cogn Linguist. 2017;28(2):321-47. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/cog-2016-0052]
12. Kövecses Z. Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. [Link]
13. Kövecses Z. Where metaphors come from: reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001]
14. Kövecses K. Metaphor universals in literature. Argumentum. 2019;15:264-76. [Link]
15. Lakoff G. The neural theory of metaphor. In: Gibbs RW, editor. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003]
16. Markoš A, Faltýnek D. Language metaphors of life. Biosemiotics. 2011;4:171-200. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12304-010-9097-6]
17. Huang S. Culture-specific elaborations in cross-linguistic studies of metaphors. In: Wolf HG, Latić D, Finzel A. Cultural-linguistic explorations into spirituality, emotionality, and society. Unknown city: John Benjamins Publishing; 2021. p. 214-35. [Link] [DOI:10.1075/clscc.14.10hua]
18. Baldwin M, Landau MJ, Swanson TJ. Metaphors can give life meaning. Self Identity. 2018;17(2):163-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/15298868.2017.1368696]
19. Lilja J, Ingelsson P, Snyder K, Bäckström I, Hedlund C. Metaphors we manage and develop quality by. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2020;12:405-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJQSS-04-2019-0060]
20. Mackinnon J. Academic supervision: seeking metaphors and models for quality. J Furth High Educ. 2004;28(4):395-405. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/0309877042000298876]
21. Demjén Z, Semino E, Koller V. Metaphors for 'good' and 'bad' deaths: A health professional view. Metaphor Soc World. 2016;6(1):1-19. [Link] [DOI:10.1075/msw.6.1.01dem]
22. Zayed O, McCrae JP, Buitelaar P. Crowd-Sourcing a high-quality dataset for metaphor identification in tweets. 2nd Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge (LDK 2019). Leipzig: DROPS; 2019. [Link]
23. McCabe A. Conceptual similarity and the quality of metaphor in isolated sentences versus extended contexts. J Psycholinguist Res. 1983;12:41-68. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/BF01072713]
24. Blumenberg H. Money or life: metaphors of georg simmel's philosophy. Theory Cult Soc. 2012;29(7-8):249-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0263276412455230]
25. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quantity. 2018;52:1893-909. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8]
26. Shah R, Ali FM, Finlay AY. Salek MS. Correction to: family reported outcomes, an unmet need in the management of a patient's disease: appraisal of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:211. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12955-021-01839-0]
27. Raiisi F, Moghadasin M. Designing, making and evaluating psychometric characteristics of the time perception pattern as metaphorical questionnaire based on cognitive- dataset analysis in Persians. J Cogn Psychol. 2020;8(2) :70-87. [Persian] [Link]
28. Raiisi F, Afrashi A, Moghadasin M, Hajkaram A, Nematzadeh SH. Understanding of metaphorical time pattern among medical and paramedical students. based on gender, age and academic status. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Med Sci. 2019;24(4):56-67. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.29252/sjku.24.4.56]
29. Sharifian F. Advances in cultural linguistics. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd; 2017.. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6]
30. Kövecses Z. Perception and metaphor: the case of smell. In: Speed LJ, O'Meara C, San Roque L, Majid A. Perception metaphors. Unknown city: John Benjamins Publishing; 2019. [Link] [DOI:10.1075/celcr.19.16kov]
31. Casasanto D, Gijssels T. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?. J Linguist Vanguard. 2015;1(1):327-37. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015]
32. Lakoff G. Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:958. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958]
33. Benedek M, Beaty R, Jauk E, Koschutnig K, Fink A, Silvia P, et al. Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. Neuroimage. 2014;90:99-106 [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.046]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |