本論文透過詞彙促發(priming)實驗探討「情緒是重量 (EMOTIONS ARE WEIGHT)」概念隱喻在線上詞彙處理中的運作方式，檢驗與重量相關的身體經驗是否會影響情緒概念的詞彙處理。情緒的認知概念通常包含效價(valence)與喚起度(arousal)兩個主要面向，然而過去研究主要聚焦於重量與情緒效價之間的隱喻關聯，較少探討喚起度在其中所扮演的角色。本研究以概念隱喻理論 (Conceptual Metaphor Theory; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b) 及 Kövecses (2017, 2020a) 的多層級隱喻模型為理論基礎，檢驗重量與效價之間是否存在隱喻相合效應，並進一步探討情緒喚起度是否會調節此跨領域對應關係。

本研究採用詞彙促發實驗，以重量詞作為促發詞(prime)，搭配不同效價(正面、負面)與喚起度(高、低)的情緒詞作為目標詞(target)，請受試者對目標詞做情緒效價判斷。實驗刺激材料透過三份前測問卷進行檢驗。首先，以重量判斷問卷(N = 30)確認重量相關詞彙的「輕」與「重」分類。接著，以效價與喚起度判斷問卷(N = 31)將情緒相關詞彙進行分類。最後，以語意關聯度問卷(N = 75)確認不同實驗條件下的促發詞與目標詞配對在語意關聯度上相互匹配，以降低潛在混淆因素的影響。60 位受試者的反應時間結果顯示，效價與喚起度皆具有顯著主效應。此外，重量與效價之間具有顯著交互作用，顯示存在重量–情緒的隱喻相合效應(metaphoric congruency effect)。具體而言，正向情緒目標詞在輕重量促發詞之後的反應速度快於重重量促發詞之後的反應，呈現出最清楚的隱喻相合效果。預測中的重—負向促進效果也出現在資料中，但重—負向與輕—負向配對之間的差異較小。另一方面，高喚起情緒詞的反應速度整體快於低喚起情緒詞，但重量、效價與喚起度之間的三因子交互作用未達顯著，表示喚起度並未調節重量與效價之間的隱喻相合效應。

根據 Kövecses (2017, 2020a) 的多層級概念隱喻模型，本研究提出，重量與情緒兩個概念領域之間的對應，主要涉及重量的「輕／重」與情緒的「正／負」兩個維度。相較之下，喚起度雖然能夠獨立促進情緒詞的處理速度，卻未影響重量與效價之間的隱喻映照。整體而言，本研究將重量–效價隱喻相合的研究延伸至詞彙概念的即時處理，並進一步釐清「情緒是重量」概念隱喻中實際參與跨領域映照的概念維度。研究結果支持概念隱喻理論對具體身體經驗與抽象情緒概念之間關聯的主張，並為其提供了更細緻的多層級詮釋。

The current thesis investigated the online processing of the EMOTION ARE WEIGHT metaphor through a lexical priming experiment, examining how physical weight-related information influences the processing of emotional concepts encoded in lexical items. While emotional information comprises both valence and arousal, previous research has focused on the metaphorical association between weight and emotional valence, leaving the role of emotional arousal understudied. Grounded in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b) and Kövecses's (2017, 2020a) multilevel framework of metaphor, I examined the weight–valence metaphoric congruency effect at the lexical level and investigated whether emotional arousal modulated this cross-domain correspondence.

In a lexical priming experiment, I paired weight-related lexical primes (heavy, light) with emotion target words varying in valence (positive, negative) and arousal levels (high vs. low); participants were asked to perform a valence judgment task on the target words. The experimental stimuli were normed through 3 pre-test questionnaires. A weight-judgment questionnaire (N = 30) was conducted to validate the Light vs. Heavy classification of the weight-related words. A valence and arousal judgment questionnaire (N = 31) was implemented to categorize the emotion-related words. Finally, a semantic-relatedness questionnaire (N = 75) was administered to match the prime–target pairs across conditions to minimize potential confounds. Results of the lexical priming experiment (N = 60) showed significant main effects of Valence and Arousal. Crucially, a significant Weight × Valence interaction was observed, indicating a metaphoric congruency effect. More specifically, responses to positive emotion targets were faster following light-weight primes than following heavy-weight primes, showing the clearest behavioral expression of the congruency effect. The predicted heavy–negative facilitation was also observed, although the difference between heavy–negative and light–negative pairs was smaller. Furthermore, although high-arousal targets elicited faster reaction times than low-arousal targets, the absence of a significant three-way interaction suggests that emotional arousal did not modulate the weight–valence congruency effect.

Integrating these findings into Kövecses's (2017, 2020a) multilevel model of conceptual metaphor, I propose that the correspondence between the domains of WEIGHT and EMOTION selectively engages weight polarity and emotional valence as the corresponding dimensions. The metaphoric congruency across these two domains is grounded in the lightness–heaviness and positive–negative correspondences. The other dimension of emotion, arousal, does not appear to influence this metaphorical mapping, although it independently facilitates emotion word processing. This thesis extends previous research on weight–valence metaphoric congruency to lexical processing, and identifies the domain-internal dimensions involved in the EMOTION ARE WEIGHT metaphor. Taken together, these findings capture a more refined multilevel account of how concrete embodied experiences shape the cognitive processing of abstract emotional concepts within Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

Barbosa Escobar, F., Velasco, C., Motoki, K., Byrne, D. V., & Wang, Q. J. (2021). The temperature of emotions. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0252408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252408

Barriga-Paulino, C. I., Guerreiro, M., Faísca, L., & Reis, A. (2022). Does emotional valence modulate word recognition? A behavioral study manipulating frequency and arousal. Acta Psychologica, 223, 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103484

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Ly, A., & Jagan, M. (2026). Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ’Eigen’ and S4 (Version 2.0-1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

Bromberek-Dyzman, K., Jończyk, R., Vasileanu, M., Niculescu-Gorpin, A.-G., & Bąk, H. (2021). Cross-linguistic differences affect emotion and emotion-laden word processing: Evidence from Polish-English and Romanian-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920987306

Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032

Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335

de Macedo, A. C. P. S. (2007). A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Metaphor ”DIFFICULTIES ARE WEIGHTS”. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 7, 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-07-03-04

Delaney-Busch, N., Wilkie, G., & Kuperberg, G. (2016). Vivid: How valence and arousal influence word processing under different task demands. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0402-y

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005a). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005b). Language and communication. In Embodiment and cognitive science (pp. 158–207). Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & de Macedo, A. C. P. S. (2010). Metaphor and embodied cognition. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 26, 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300014

Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2017). Metaphor, language, and dynamical systems. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language (pp. 56–69). Routledge.

Gibbs Jr., R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009

Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley].

Hartmann, M., Lenggenhager, B., & Stocker, K. (2023). Happiness feels light and sadness feels heavy: Introducing valence-related bodily sensation maps of emotions. Psychological Research, 87(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01661-3

Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000145

Huang, Y., Tse, C.-S., & Xie, J. (2018). The bidirectional congruency effect of brightness-valence metaphoric association in the Stroop-like and priming paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 189, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.006

Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1169–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x

Kaufmann, L., & Allen, S. (2014). Adding weight to judgments: The role of stimulus focality on weight-related embodied cognition. SENSORIA —A JOURNAL OF MIND, BRAIN, AND CULTURE., 10(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.7790/sa.v10i1.390

Kazanas, S. A., & Altarriba, J. (2015). The Automatic Activation of Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words: Evidence from a Masked and Unmasked Priming Paradigm. The American Journal of Psychology, 128(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.3.0323

Kazanas, S. A., & Altarriba, J. (2016). Emotion Word Processing: Effects of Word Type and Valence in Spanish-English Bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(2), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9357-3

Kever, A., Grynberg, D., Szmalec, A., Smalle, E., & Vermeulen, N. (2019). “Passion” versus “patience”: The effects of valence and arousal on constructive word recognition. Cognition and Emotion, 33(6), 1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1561419

Kirby, J. (1997). Aristotle On Metaphor. American Journal of Philology, 118, 517–554. https://doi.org/10.1353/ajp.1997.0056

Knowles, M., & Moon, R. (2004, August 2). Introducing Metaphor. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203642368

Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press USA.

Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University PressNew York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001

Kövecses, Z. (2008). Metaphor and Emotion. In Jr. Gibbs Raymond W. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 380–396). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023

Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052

Kövecses, Z. (2020a). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127

Kövecses, Z. (2020b). Emotion concepts in a new light. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio. https://doi.org/10.4396/SFL2019I7

Krawczak, K. (2025). Corpus evidence for lexical and genre effects in the metaphorical conceptualization of negative self-evaluative emotions: The case of shame and embarrassment. Language and Cognition, 17, e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.57

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., Christensen, R. H. B., & Jensen, S. P. (2026, March 5). lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models (Version 3.2-1). Retrieved July 14, 2026, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39

Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013

Lakoff, G. (2016). Language and Emotion. Emotion Review, 8(3), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915595097

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980a). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980b). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Lane, E. (2024). Metaphor and ambiguity. Philosophical Studies, 181(11), 3059–3087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02252-1

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.

Lee, L.-H., Li, J.-H., & Yu, L.-C. (2022). Chinese EmoBank: Building Valence-Arousal Resources for Dimensional Sentiment Analysis. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing, 21(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3489141

Lemghari, E. M. (2022). On the Role of Source and Target Words’ Meanings in Metaphorical Conceptualizations. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 67(1), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2022-0005

Liu, J., Fan, L., Tian, L., Li, C., & Feng, W. (2023). The neural mechanisms of explicit and implicit processing of Chinese emotion-label and emotion-laden words: Evidence from emotional categorisation and emotional Stroop tasks. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(10), 1412–1429. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2093389

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00659.x

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E., & Ahlvers, W. J. (2007). When ”light” and ”dark” thoughts become light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion, 7(2), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.366

Ortells, J. J., Marí-Beffa, P., & Plaza-Ayllón, V. (2013). Unconscious congruency priming from unpracticed words is modulated by prime-target semantic relatedness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028876

Ortony, A. (1975). Why Metaphors Are Necessary and Not Just Nice. Educational Theory, 25(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x

Pavlenko, A. (2008). Emotion and emotion-laden words in the bilingual lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003283

Pedersen, T., Pakhomov, S. V. S., Patwardhan, S., & Chute, C. G. (2007). Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 40(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2006.06.004

Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.380

R Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.

Recio, G., Conrad, M., Hansen, L. B., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). On pleasure and thrill: The interplay between arousal and valence during visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 134, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.009

Ren, W., Li, Y., & Wang, H. (2021). Metaphorical representation modulates the weight-embodiment effect: Evidence from behavioral- and event-related-potential-based experiments. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 60, 101022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2021.101022

Rhodes, J. E., Hackney, S. J., & Smith, J. A. (2019). Emptiness, Engulfment, and Life Struggle: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Chronic Depression. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 32(4), 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2018.1515046

Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self and feeling. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 137–157). Cambridge University Press.

Rosch, E. (1988). Principles of categorization. In A. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in Cognitive Science, a Perspective From Psychology and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 312–322). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50028-5

Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2025). Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments (Version 1.5-1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/afex/index.html

Stroch, C., Nussinson, R., Mentser, S., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2019). “Heavy of Mouth” and “Heavy of Tongue”: Weight as a Conceptual Metaphor of Disability. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(4), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1683947

Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press.

Tang, D., Fu, Y., Wang, H., Liu, B., Zang, A., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2023). The embodiment of emotion-label words and emotion-laden words: Evidence from late Chinese–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1143064

Thompson-Schill, S. L., Kurtz, K. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1998). Effects of Semantic and Associative Relatedness on Automatic Priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2559

Tse, C.-S., Huang, Y., Zeng, T., Zhou, Y., & Chan, Y.-L. (2021). The influence of congruency proportion, target eccentricity, and valence strength on the spatial-valence metaphoric congruency effect in a word valence judgment task. Psychological Research, 85(7), 2610–2635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01422-0

Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.36

Unkelbach, C., von Hippel, W., Forgas, J. P., Robinson, M. D., Shakarchi, R. J., & Hawkins, C. (2010). Good Things Come Easy: Subjective Exposure Frequency and the Faster Processing of Positive Information. Social Cognition, 28(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.4.538

van Berkum, J. J. A. (2019). Language comprehension and emotion: Where are the interfaces, and who cares? In G. I. De Zubicaray & N. O. Schiller (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neurolinguistics. Oxford University Press.

Wingfield, C., & Connell, L. (2022). Understanding the role of linguistic distributional knowledge in cognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(10), 1220–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2069278

Wu, C., Shi, Y., & Zhang, J. (2023). Beyond Valence and Arousal: The Role of Age of Acquisition in Emotion Word Recognition. Behavioral Sciences, 13(7), 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070568

Wu, C., Wu, Y., & Gao, F. (2024). The role of emotional prototypicality in Chinese emotion word recognition: Evidence from implicit and explicit emotion tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 45(6), 963–978. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716424000341

Yao, Z., Zhu, X., & Luo, W. (2019). Valence makes a stronger contribution than arousal to affective priming. PeerJ , 7, e7777. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7777

Yu, N., & Huang, J. (2019). Primary metaphors across languages: Difficulty as weight and solidity. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611725

Yu, N., Yu, L., & Lee, Y. C. (2017). Primary metaphors: Importance as size and weight in a comparative perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(4), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1384276

Zhang, J., Teo, T., & Wu, C. (2019). Emotion Words Modulate Early Conflict Processing in a Flanker Task: Differentiating Emotion-Label Words and Emotion-Laden Words in Second Language. Language and Speech, 62(4), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918807509

Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2012). From Physical Weight to Psychological Significance: The Contribution of Semantic Activations. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1086/661768

Zhao, X., He, X., & Zhang, W. (2016). A Heavy Heart: The Association between Weight and Emotional Words. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00920