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)|
References found in this work BETA
Perceptual Symbol Systems.Lawrence W. Barsalou - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
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.
An Ontology-Based Approach to Metaphor Cognitive Computation.Xiaoxi Huang, Huaxin Huang, Beishui Liao & Cihua Xu - 2013 - Minds and Machines 23 (1):105-121.
On the Very Importance of the Metaphoric as Semantic to Communication, Understanding, and the Philosophy of Language.Mark Andrew Matienzo - 2001 - Dissertation, College of Wooster
What is Said by a Metaphor: The Role of Salience and Conventionality.Fernando Martinez-Manrique & Agustin Vicente - 2013 - Pragmatics and Cognition 21 (2):304-328.
Abduction and Metaphor: An Inquiry Into Common Cognitive Mechanism. [REVIEW]Cihua Xu & Hengwei Li - 2011 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):480-491.
The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science.Daniel Rothbart - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (4):595-615.
Drama as Life: The Significance of Goffman's Changing Use of the Theatrical Metaphor.Phil Manning - 1991 - Sociological Theory 9 (1):70-86.
Added to index2010-11-09
Total downloads18 ( #270,400 of 2,168,632 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,816 of 2,168,632 )
How can I increase my downloads?