O‘zmu xabarlari Вестник нууз acta nuuz

Participants were divided into four groups and were asked to 
read the poem following one of four different instructions. In 
the first condition, the guidelines suggested the literal 
interpretation of Rich‘s poem. In the second condition, 

---

O„zMU xabarlari Вестник НУУз ACTA NUUz
 
FILOLOGIYA 
1/5 2022 
- 242 - 
participants were given the idea that the poem describes a 
failed relationship. The third prompt encouraged participants 
to consider multiple meanings of the poem, and no explicit 
instructions about how the poem should be read were given in 
the fourth setting. Gibbs and Okonski‘s (2018) main finding 
was that, regardless of how they were instructed, almost all 
participants articulated the metaphorical/allegorical theme of 
the poem by making references to source domains that refer to 
embodied experiences (e.g. a metaphorical journey into a 
damaged psyche).
Conclusion.
The results of the study aim to offer 
empirical evidence for the assumption that readers access 
conceptual metaphor during poetry interpretation. At the same 
time, they also aim to highlight the many other factors 
(linguistic, 
personal, 
social 
etc.) 
which 
shape 
the 
understanding of figurative language in poetic narratives. 
Eventually, the implications of this work will be discussed for 
psycholinguistic theories of figurative language comprehend-
sion.
 
REFERENCES 
1.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University 
Press. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Jacobs, A. M., & Annette Kinder. (2017). The brain is the prisoner of thought: A machine learning assisted quantitative 
narrative analysis of literary metaphors for use in Neurocognitive Poetics. Metaphor and Symbol 32(3): 139-160. 
3.
Keysar, B.,Shen, Y. Glucksberg, S., & William S. Horton. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it?. Journal 
of Memory and Language 43: 576–593. 
4.
Kövecses, Zoltan. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Lakoff, G. & Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Steen, Gerard. (2017.) 
Deliberate metaphor theory: basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural pragmatics 14(1): 1-24. 
6.
Musolff, A. (2004) Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe, Basingstoke, U.K.: 
Palgrave Macmillan. 
7.
Reddy, M. (1979) ‗The conduit metaphor‘, in A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, 284–324, Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
8.
Semino, E. (2008) Metaphor in Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
9.
Steen, G, et al. (2007) ‗MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse‘, Metaphor and Symbol 22-
1: 1-39. 
10.
Taylor, J.R. and MacLaury, R. (eds) (1995) Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter.
11.
Yu, N. (1998) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. A Perspective from Chinese, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

---