Cognitive Science 35 (2):251-296 (2011)
|Abstract||Recent metaphor research has revealed that metaphor comprehension involves both categorization and comparison processes. This finding has triggered the following central question: Which property determines the choice between these two processes for metaphor comprehension? Three competing views have been proposed to answer this question: the conventionality view (Bowdle & Gentner, 2005), aptness view (Glucksberg & Haught, 2006b), and interpretive diversity view (Utsumi, 2007); these views, respectively, argue that vehicle conventionality, metaphor aptness, and interpretive diversity determine the choice between the categorization and comparison processes. This article attempts to answer the question regarding which views are plausible by using cognitive modeling and computer simulation based on a semantic space model. In the simulation experiment, categorization and comparison processes are modeled in a semantic space constructed by latent semantic analysis. These two models receive word vectors for the constituent words of a metaphor and compute a vector for the metaphorical meaning. The resulting vectors can be evaluated according to the degree to which they mimic the human interpretation of the same metaphor; the maximum likelihood estimation determines which of the two models better explains the human interpretation. The result of the model selection is then predicted by three metaphor properties (i.e., vehicle conventionality, aptness, and interpretive diversity) to test the three views. The simulation experiment for Japanese metaphors demonstrates that both interpretive diversity and vehicle conventionality affect the choice between the two processes. On the other hand, it is found that metaphor aptness does not affect this choice. This result can be treated as computational evidence supporting the interpretive diversity and conventionality views|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sam Glucksberg & Catrinel Haught (2006). On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails. Mind and Language 21 (3):360–378.
Lynne Tirrell (1991). Seeing Metaphor as Seeing-As: Davidson's Positive View of Metaphor. Philosophical Investigations 14 (2):143-154.
Robert Boyd Skipper (2002). Objects in Space As Metaphor for the Internet. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 9 (1):83-88.
Phillip Wolff & Dedre Gentner (2011). Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension. Cognitive Science 35 (8):1456-1488.
Xiaoxi Huang, Huaxin Huang, Beishui Liao & Cihua Xu (2013). An Ontology-Based Approach to Metaphor Cognitive Computation. Minds and Machines 23 (1):105-121.
Mark A. Matienzo, On the Very Importance of the Metaphoric as Semantic to Communication, Understanding, and the Philosophy of Language.
Trevor Whittock (1990). Metaphor and Film. Cambridge University Press.
Lynne Tirrell (1989). Extending: The Structure of Metaphor. Noûs 23 (1):17-34.
Samuel D. Guttenplan (2005). Objects of Metaphor. Oxford University Press.
Fernando Martinez-Manrique & Agustin Vicente (forthcoming). What is Said by a Metaphor: The Role of Salience and Conventionality. Pragmatics and Cognition.
Cihua Xu & Hengwei Li (2011). Abduction and Metaphor: An Inquiry Into Common Cognitive Mechanism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):480-491.
Daniel Rothbart (1984). The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science. Philosophy of Science 51 (4):595-615.
Neil Pickering (1999). Metaphors and Models in Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (4).
Phil Manning (1991). Drama as Life: The Significance of Goffman's Changing Use of the Theatrical Metaphor. Sociological Theory 9 (1):70-86.
Added to index2010-11-09
Total downloads4 ( #178,473 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?