Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/89364
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Englishen_US
dc.creatorTay, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-18T03:04:43Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-18T03:04:43Z-
dc.identifier.issn2210-4070en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/89364-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherJohn Benjaminsen_US
dc.rights© John Benjamins Publishing Companyen_US
dc.rightsPermission from John Benjamins Publishing Company must be obtained for re-use of reprint the material in any form.en_US
dc.rightsThis is the author accepted manuscript of the following article: Tay, D. (2020). Surveying views of metaphor vs. literal language in psychotherapy: A factor analysis. Metaphor and the Social World, 10(2), 273-291, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00007.tayen_US
dc.subjectConfirmatory factor analysisen_US
dc.subjectExperimental surveyen_US
dc.subjectExploratory factor analysisen_US
dc.subjectMetaphor functionsen_US
dc.titleSurveying views of metaphor vs. literal language in psychotherapy : a factor analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage273en_US
dc.identifier.epage291en_US
dc.identifier.volume10en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1075/msw.00007.tayen_US
dcterms.abstractFive key therapeutic functions of metaphors are often discussed by psychotherapists. They (i) help clients express emotions and experiences, (ii) help therapists and clients explain difficult concepts, (iii) introduce new frames of reference, (iv) help work through client resistance, and (v) build a collaborative relationship between therapists and clients. Research on how these functions are enacted in psychotherapy talk tends to assume that they are indeed perceived as such by clients, and that metaphorical language is preferred to comparable literal language in performing them. This paper reports a survey study (N= 84) to critically interrogate these assumptions. Participants read two constructed therapy dialogues, controlled and counterbalanced for presentation sequence, where therapist and client discuss an issue using metaphorical and literal language respectively. Each dialogue is followed by a 15-item questionnaire to rate how well the presumed functions were performed (e.g. the therapist and client can work effectively together, the therapist is able to explain difficult concepts). A combined Confirmatory (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) suggests that, instead of the five distinct functions proposed in the literature, participants discerned three functions which reflect a more holistic view of what metaphors can do. A second EFA conducted on literal responses yielded only two factors. This contrast in factor structure further suggests that (i) literal language is less functionally nuanced, and (ii) metaphors are not simply perceived as an ‘add-on’ to literal language, but are evaluated across an extended narrative in fundamentally different ways. Within-subjects metaphor vs. literal ratings of the items under the emergent three-factor structure were then compared. Metaphor ratings were significantly higher in all factors (p< 0.01), suggesting that metaphorical language is indeed perceived as more effective than literal language when discussing clients’ issues. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMetaphor and the social world, Nov. 2020, v. 10, no. 2, p. 273-291en_US
dcterms.isPartOfMetaphor and the social worlden_US
dcterms.issued2020-11-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85096344133-
dc.description.validate202103 bcvcen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera0611-n03-
dc.identifier.SubFormID587-
dc.description.fundingSourceRGCen_US
dc.description.fundingText156033/18Hen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
a0611-n03_05 Tay.pdfPre-Published version584.28 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

81
Last Week
2
Last month
Citations as of Mar 24, 2024

Downloads

82
Citations as of Mar 24, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

4
Citations as of Mar 28, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

4
Citations as of Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.