استعاره و ابهام معنایی براساس نظریۀ شناخت کوانتومی فویاما

 Passing through metaphorical language and reaching literal language requires a path from ambiguity to clarity of meaning. This path starts with seemingly unrelated expressions in terms of meaning, and by passing through the area of unconventional metaphors and transforming these elements into conventional metaphors, it finally leads to literal combinations. Fuyama (2023), considers the process of understanding metaphorical expressions similar to the performance of particles in the double-slit experiment in quantum physics, based on which, determining the particle or wave characteristics of particles, like understanding the category of compositional and non-compositional expressions, after passing through the filter the meaning is accepted by the speakers. To test this hypothesis, through internet questionnaires, 108 participants were asked to answer 192 metaphorical expressions according to the degree of ambiguity; rating them from 1 to 7. The method of conducting this research is descriptive-analytical and the data were extracted from the works of several contemporary Iranian poets. The results show that seemingly unrelated expressions have the highest degree of ambiguity and are responsible for generating new meanings. Also, the overlapping of some areas indicates the change of the category of metaphorical expressions, which depends on the acceptance of new meanings by the speakers.

Introduction
One of the basic features of language is polysemy as a concept involving a word form that conveys multiple meanings. These meanings are systematically related to each other and when they are connected by metaphorical similarity; they indicate metaphorical polysemy. Metaphors can be considered as the basis for creating and understanding new concepts (Holyuk and Stamenkovich, 2018).
Linguists divide metaphor into conventional and unconventional metaphors, and consider them different from each other (Banaroy et al., 2019). According to linguists, conventional metaphors (dead metaphors) are a group of metaphors that are accepted and used by people who belong to a common language community. On the other hand, unconventional metaphors are creative expressions that are made and discussed in specific situations by experts, such as writers and poets. It seems that each metaphoric phrase has the ability to be placed in either of the two categories by nature. The certainty of its belonging to each of these domains is confirmed only after passing through the filter of acceptance of the meaning by the linguistic community. Thus seemingly unrelated expressions in terms of meaning become unconventional metaphors after repeated use in linguistic contexts, and these types of metaphors gradually appear in the form of conventional metaphors. Eventually, the extreme idiomization of these expressions causes them to be used as literal expressions in the daily life of speakers (Mashal and Fawcett, 2009).
Among the factors that facilitate or delay the change of the category of linguistic expressions and its acceptance or non-acceptance by the speakers; is the degree of semantic ambiguity. It is obvious that accepting phrases with emerging meanings causes ambiguity in the audience's mind and makes them confused. Therefore, this group of expressions can be introduced as a new type of metaphor responsible for the production of emerging meanings (ibid. 8).
Theoretical Framework
Fuyama proposed that the entire metaphorical meaning of a sentence or a phrase can be based on its literal and metaphorical meanings, considering the possibility of two situations. In the first case, the literal and metaphorical meanings are combined. In this situation, the whole meaning is reduced to the weighted sum of the literal and metaphorical meanings and can be represented as a total of both meanings (Fuyama, 2023: 7). This model (Figure 1) indicates a state where the whole meaning is displayed with literal and metaphorical meaning. Such vectors represent the meaning of words in a wide semantic space (Mikolov et al., 2013)
 
Figure 1. Explanation of compositional meaning. (Fuyama, 2023:3)
In another case, the created meanings are non-compositional and original. These meanings cannot be reduced to their literal and figurative meanings (Figure 2). Fuyama concludes that metaphorical sentences or expressions have a function similar to that of particles. These phrases have both literal and metaphorical meanings by nature. However, after passing through the smooth perception of the speaker, they display only one of the literal or figurative characteristics, which is an example of non-combination (Fuyama, 2023: 7).
 
Figure 2. Explanation of non-compositional meaning. (Fuyama, 2023:3)
Research Methodology
The method of conducting this research is descriptive-analytical, and the data were collected through library and field methods, using a questionnaire. In this research, we first collected 192 expressions including conventional and unconventional metaphorical expressions, as well as seemingly unrelated words in terms of meaning. Conventional metaphorical expressions were collected from non-literary texts, widely published in newspapers, books with relatively simple prose, as well as everyday speech of speakers. Unconventional metaphorical expressions were also adapted from the poems of poets such as Aminpour (2001), Mossadegh (2004), Lotfi (2012) and Farrokhzad (1963). Some of the data were created by the authors and other data were extracted from the poetic texts. Then, the collected data were designed as a questionnaire using the Google Docs service and were provided to the respondents through the Internet. In this test, 108 respondents (19 men and 89 women), aged between 23 and 33 years old, with different educational levels (diploma, post-diploma, BA, MA and Ph.D) were asked to rate the degree of ambiguity of these expressions by choosing a number from 1 to 7. In order to rank the degree of ambiguity according to the level of lexically of the meaning of expressions in the statistical population, based on the frequency of answers, scores between 1 and 3 were conventional metaphorical expressions; between 3 and 5 we considered as unconventional metaphors and between (5 to 7) seemingly unrelated words in terms of meaning. At the end, using SPSS software, the frequency of each phrase was determined. Finally, we measured the overlap percentage of the mentioned areas with each other and, determined the areas that had the highest degree of ambiguity in terms of meaning.
Discussion
One of the most common tools in figurative language is metaphor. The studies conducted in the cognitive and psychological fields of language show that metaphors, in addition to being an efficient tool in the formation of word meanings (Cruz and Roberts, 1993), are also related to the human conceptual system (Al-Hajj, 2019; Citron et al. , 2020; Hendricks, 2018; Joe et al., 2020; Mashal, 2013). Therefore, metaphors can be considered both a tool for expressing meanings and conceptual metaphors as a way of thinking (Kochesh, 2010). Fuyama asserts that in metaphorical expressions, literal and figurative meanings can interact and overlap with each other at the interference fringe. In this approach, it is assumed that the meaning of a metaphorical expression includes both literal and figurative meanings (Fuyama, 2023. p.1). She divides the expressions into the compositional and non- compositional expressions.
Conclusion
This research seeks to find an appropriate answer to these two questions. 1- "How does the overlapping of literal and figurative meanings in compound expressions lead to the understanding of metaphor?" And 2- "Which metaphorical field is responsible for producing new meanings?"
Each compositional expression consists of two semantic parts: 1- literal and 2- figurative. What causes the formation of a metaphorical phrase is the combination of nouns that belong to different semantic categories, but in syntagmatic axis, they enter into a meaningful relationship with each other. These two different semantic domains are placed in the vicinity of each other and overlap at the interference fringe, forming a compound phrase. This phrase inherently has both literal and figurative meanings. The mapping of the semantic characteristics of the source domain to the target domain, is similar to overlapping these two semantically different domains. So, the speaker will understand the figurative meaning of the second component with the help of the part that expresses the literal meaning.
In non-compositional expressions, the part that has a figurative meaning describes another part with a literal meaning and replaces it in the paradigmatic axis.The semantic relationship between these two components is ambiguous and incomprehensible to the speaker. Hence, non-composition expressions have semantic ambiguity. Non-composition expressions, before passing through the filter of acceptance of meaning by the speakers, inherently retain the ability to transform into expressions with literal or figurative meaning. However, after being accepted by the language community, they will display only one semantic feature (literal or figurative). Referring to the previous explanations, seemingly unrelated expressions are responsible for generating new meanings.
Ethical Considerations
Not applicable
Funding
Not applicable
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.