Computational Exploration of Metaphor Comprehension Processes Using a Semantic Space Model

Cognitive Science 35 (2):251-296 (2011)
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 Maximum likelihood estimation  Latent semantic analysis (LSA)  Categorization  Cognitive modeling  Semantic space model  Interpretive diversity  Conventionality  Comparison  Metaphor comprehension
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01144.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,606
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Metaphors We Live By.George Lakoff - 1980 - University of Chicago Press.
Relevance.D. Sperber & D. Wilson - 1995 - Blackwell.
Perceptual Symbol Systems.Lawrence W. Barsalou - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.
Embodiment and Cognitive Science.Raymond W. Gibbs - 2006 - New York ;Cambridge University Press.

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Seeing Metaphor as Seeing-As: Davidson's Positive View of Metaphor.Lynne Tirrell - 1991 - Philosophical Investigations 14 (2):143-154.
Objects in Space As Metaphor for the Internet.Robert Boyd Skipper - 2002 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 9 (1):83-88.
Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension.Phillip Wolff & Dedre Gentner - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (8):1456-1488.
Metaphor and Film.Trevor Whittock - 1990 - Cambridge University Press.
Objects of Metaphor.Samuel D. Guttenplan - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science.Daniel Rothbart - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (4):595-615.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

18 ( #270,400 of 2,168,632 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #346,816 of 2,168,632 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums