Abstract
The semantic similarity that characterizes two terms aligned in a metaphor is here analysed through a corpus-based distributional semantic space. We compare and contrast two samples of metaphors, representative of visual and linguistic modality of expressions respectively. Popular theories of metaphor claim that metaphors transcend their modality to influence conceptual structures, thus suggesting that different modalities of expression would typically express the same conceptual metaphors. However, we show substantial differences in the degree of similarity captured by the distributional semantic space with regard to the modality of expression (higher similarity for linguistic metaphors than for visual ones). We argue that this is due to two possible variables: Conventionality (linguistic metaphors are typically conventional, while visual are not) and Complexity (visual metaphors have modality-specific inner complexities that penalize the degree of similarity between metaphor terms captured by a language-based model). Finally, we compare the similarity scores of our original formulations with those obtained from different possible verbalizations of the same metaphors (acquired by replacing the metaphor terms with their semantic neighbours). We show that while this operation does not affect the average similarity between metaphor terms for visual metaphors, the similarity changes significantly in linguistic metaphors. These results are discussed here.
Funding statement: Seventh Framework Programme, (Grant/Award Number: ‘FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF, COGVIM n° 629076’).
References
Artstein, Ron & Massimo Poesio. 2008. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 34(4). 555–596.10.1162/coli.07-034-R2Search in Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco, & Alessandro Lenci. 2010. Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics 36(4). 673–721.10.1162/coli_a_00016Search in Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1979. More about metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 19–43. Cambridge: University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004Search in Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Marianna. 2016. Using semantic feature norms to investigate how the visual and the verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition 27. 1–28.10.1017/langcog.2016.27Search in Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Marianna, Romy van den Heerik & Esther van den Berg. under review. VisMet: An online corpus of visual metaphors. In G. Steen (ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Bowdle, Brian & Dedre Gentner. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112. 193–216.10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Deerwester, Scott, Susan Dumais & Richard Harshman. 1990. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American society for information science. 41(6). 391–407.10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9Search in Google Scholar
Del Tredici, Marco & Nuria Bel. 2016. Assessing the potential of metaphoricity of verbs using corpus data. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), 4573–4577.Search in Google Scholar
Firth, John Rupert. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis (special volume of the Philological Society) 1952–1959. 1–32.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial metaphors in advertising. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2005. Visual representations of the idealized cognitive model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 69–88.10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.002Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2011. The JOURNEY metaphor and the source-path-goal schema in Agnès Varda’s autobiographical gleaning documentaries. In Monika Fludernik (ed.), Beyond cognitive metaphor theory: Perspectives on literary metaphor, 281–297. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.). 2009. Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215366Search in Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2008. Is metaphor unique? In Raymond Gibbs, Jr (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 143–160. Cambridge, UK: University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.010Search in Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Samuel. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goodall, Catherine, Michael Slater & Teresa Myers. 2013. Fear and anger responses to local news coverage of alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and injuries: Explaining news effects on policy support using a representative sample of messages and people. Journal of Communication 63. 373–392.10.1111/jcom.12020Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10(2). 146–162.10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520Search in Google Scholar
Hidalgo, Laura & Blanca Kraljevic. 2011. Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In Francisco Gonzálvez García, Maria Sandra Peña & Lorena Pérez-Hernández (eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor, 153–178. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hidSearch in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 2000. Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7. 257–266.10.3758/BF03212981Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Landauer, Thomas & Susan Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review 104(2). 211–240.10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211Search in Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro. 2008. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian journal of linguistics 20(1). 1–31.Search in Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew. 2007. What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language and Communication 27. 109–126.10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016Search in Google Scholar
Miller, George & Walter Charles. 1991. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and cognitive processes 6(1). 1–28.10.1080/01690969108406936Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, William. 1994. Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60(2). 173–204.10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Ng, Carl & Veronika Koller. 2013. Deliberate conventional metaphor in images: The case of corporate branding discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 28(3). 131–147.10.1080/10926488.2013.797807Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz, Maria. 2011. Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1568–1580.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, Lorena. 2014. Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural commercial communication. Cognitive Linguistics 25(2). 203–247.10.1515/cog-2014-0015Search in Google Scholar
Perez-Sobrino, Paula. 2016. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor and Symbol 31(2). 73–90.10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Barbara & Edward McQuarrie. 2004. Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory 4. 113–136.10.1177/1470593104044089Search in Google Scholar
Shutova, Ekaterina. 2015. Design and evaluation of metaphor processing systems. Computational Linguistics 41(1). 579–623.10.1162/COLI_a_00233Search in Google Scholar
Simmons, Joseph, Leif Nelson & Uri Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11). 1359–1366.10.1177/0956797611417632Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Šorm, Ester & Gerard Steen. under review. VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor Identification. In Gerard Steen (ed.), Visual metaphor: How images construct metaphorical meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2013. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 5(1). 179–197.10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.179Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Lettie Dorst, Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.14Search in Google Scholar
Tukey, John. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5. 99–114.10.2307/3001913Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 2002. The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Turney, Peter. 2006. Similarity of semantic relations. Computational Linguistics 32(3). 379–416.10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.379Search in Google Scholar
Turney, Peter & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of artificial intelligence research 37(1). 141–188.10.1613/jair.2934Search in Google Scholar
Utsumi, Akira. 2011. Computational exploration of metaphor comprehension processes using a semantic space model. Cognitive Science 35(2). 251–296.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01144.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
van Weelden, Lisanne, Alfons Maes, Joost Schilperoord & Marc Swerts. 2012. How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology 59(6). 364–371.10.1027/1618-3169/a000165Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Veale, Tony, Ekaterina Shutova & Beata Klebanov. 2016. Metaphor: A computational perspective. Synthesis lectures on human language technologies. San Raphael, CA: Morgan and Claypool Publishers.10.2200/S00694ED1V01Y201601HLT031Search in Google Scholar
Vecchi, Eva Maria, Marco Baroni & Roberto Zamparelli. 2011. (Linear) maps of the impossible: Capturing semantic anomalies in distributional space. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Distributional Semantics and Compositionality, 1–9.Search in Google Scholar
Appendices
A. Similarity values for visual and linguistic metaphors
Linguistic Metaphors
Target | Source | Similarity | Target | Source | Similarity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
accumulation-n | river-n | 0.07 | homeland-n | house-n | 0.31 |
army-n | motion-n | 0.13 | idea-n | object-n | 0.3 |
aspect-n | surface-n | 0.17 | idea-n | point-n | 0.31 |
aspect-n | money-n | 0.08 | institution-n | equipment-n | 0.19 |
attention-n | eye-n | 0.2 | judgment-n | finger-n | 0.07 |
attitude-n | gas-n | 0.09 | knowledge-n | brightness-n | 0.16 |
body-n | canvas-n | 0.2 | manner-n | path-n | 0.05 |
center-n | heart-n | 0.21 | opinion-n | picture-n | 0.24 |
condition-n | object-n | 0.29 | opinion-n | eye-n | 0.1 |
consequence-n | food-n | 0.1 | opportunity-n | door-n | 0.1 |
consideration-n | appearance-n | 0.15 | organization-n | building-n | 0.25 |
constraint-n | obstacle-n | 0.35 | partner-n | food-n | 0.15 |
decision-n | movement-n | 0.22 | plant-n | person-n | 0.29 |
decision-n | path-n | 0.16 | possibility-n | space-n | 0.27 |
discipline-n | place-n | 0.2 | provider-n | origin-n | 0.09 |
discussion-n | war-n | 0.29 | purpose-n | destination-n | 0.12 |
emotion-n | tide-n | 0.13 | rank-n | location-n | 0.18 |
emotion-n | force-n | 0.18 | reason-n | point-n | 0.16 |
end-n | cloth-n | 0.05 | reason-n | location-n | 0.18 |
explanation-n | drawing-n | 0.24 | rubbish-n | feces-n | 0.18 |
factory-n | organism-n | 0.16 | situation-n | air-n | 0.14 |
feces-n | food-n | 0.32 | success-n | condition-n | 0.2 |
food-n | gold-n | 0.18 | time-n | frame-n | 0.17 |
governance-n | force-n | 0.13 | toy-n | girl-n | 0.29 |
harsh-j | hard-j | 0.26 | understand-v | see-v | 0.45 |
Visual Metaphors
Target | Source | Similarity | Target | Source | Similarity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
airplane-n | bread-n | 0.1 | globe-n | ice-cream-n | 0.04 |
airplane-n | swan-n | 0.17 | hand-n | fork-n | 0.19 |
america-n | crocodile-n | 0.06 | hand-n | zebra-n | 0.06 |
bank-n | beggar-n | 0.14 | hand-n | bulldozer-n | 0.12 |
barcode-n | jail-n | 0.02 | jeep-n | rhino-n | 0.08 |
beggar-n | bomb-n | 0.07 | kid-n | piglet-n | 0.22 |
bomb-n | flower-n | 0.16 | missile-n | dove-n | 0.1 |
book-n | tree-n | 0.14 | mouth-n | onion-n | 0.03 |
bottle-n | bullet-n | 0.18 | mouthwash-n | bomb-n | 0.09 |
brain-n | newspaper-n | 0.11 | newspaper-n | manhole-n | 0.05 |
brain-n | turtle-n | 0.12 | octopus-n | tire-n | 0.08 |
car-n | dolphin-n | 0.16 | pen-n | bullet-n | 0.21 |
car-n | horse-n | 0.43 | pen-n | thermometer-n | 0.35 |
car-n | pepper-n | 0.08 | perfume-n | doorway-n | 0.04 |
cart-n | jail-n | 0.1 | president-n | sun-n | 0.05 |
cart-n | tank-n | 0.34 | president-n | lion-n | 0.12 |
cigarette-n | maze-n | 0.03 | radio-n | beggar-n | 0.08 |
coke-n | dandelion-n | 0.06 | seagull-n | book-n | 0.06 |
country-n | bomb-n | 0.06 | seaweed-n | plastic-n | 0.22 |
country-n | drain-n | 0.1 | skin-n | match-n | 0.06 |
cream-n | dandelion-n | 0.1 | sun-n | yolk-n | 0.03 |
cup-n | switch-n | 0.2 | sweater-n | gorilla-n | 0.05 |
dollar-n | carpet-n | 0.1 | terrorist-n | match-n | 0.07 |
dove-n | target-n | 0.09 | tablet-n | trainer-n | 0.11 |
elephant-n | trumpet-n | 0.07 | wheel-n | clock-n | 0.32 |
B. Conventional linguistic metaphors
Target | Source | Target | Source |
---|---|---|---|
aspect-n | surface-n | idea-n | point-n |
attention-n | eye-n | manner-n | path-n |
center-n | heart-n | opinion-n | picture-n |
constraint-n | obstacle-n | opportunity-n | door-n |
discussion-n | war-n | possibility-n | space-n |
explanation-n | drawing-n | purpose-n | destination-n |
governance-n | force-n | reason-n | point-n |
harsh-j | hard-j | understand-v | see-v |
C. Reformulated visual metaphors
Target | Source | Similarity | Target | Source | Similarity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
gift-n | separation-n | 0.17 | earth-n | ice-cream-n | 0.04 |
airline-n | swan-n | 0.17 | help-n | hand-n | 0.16 |
america-n | crocodile-n | 0.06 | help-n | hand-n | 0.16 |
bank-n | beggar-n | 0.14 | hand-n | machine-n | 0.27 |
market-n | jail-n | 0.1 | jeep-n | rhino-n | 0.08 |
poverty-n | bomb-n | 0.06 | kid-n | piglet-n | 0.22 |
war-n | peace-n | 0.17 | war-n | peace-n | 0.17 |
knowledge-n | plant-n | 0.19 | breath-n | onion-n | 0.03 |
alcohol-n | weapon-n | 0.21 | mouthwash-n | explosive-n | 0.19 |
intelligence-n | reading-n | 0.32 | news-n | rubbish-n | 0.16 |
brain-n | turtle-n | 0.12 | tentacle-n | tire-n | 0.12 |
car-n | dolphin-n | 0.16 | signature-n | weapon-n | 0.32 |
car-n | horse-n | 0.43 | pen-n | thermometer-n | 0.35 |
car-n | pepper-n | 0.08 | perfume-n | escape-n | 0.12 |
market-n | jail-n | 0.1 | leader-n | sun-n | 0.09 |
market-n | tank-n | 0.19 | president-n | predator-n | 0.16 |
smoking-n | maze-n | 0.03 | radio-n | beggar-n | 0.08 |
low-fat-j | light-j | 0.13 | reading-n | flight-n | 0.33 |
country-n | bomb-n | 0.06 | seaweed-n | rubbish-n | 0.19 |
country-n | drain-n | 0.1 | skin-n | fire-n | 0.1 |
cream-n | dandelion-n | 0.1 | sun-n | life-n | 0.09 |
coffee-n | switch-n | 0.14 | sweater-n | gorilla-n | 0.05 |
economy-n | carpet-n | 0.07 | terrorist-n | fire-n | 0.15 |
peace-n | target-n | 0.16 | technology-n | trainer-n | 0.22 |
elephant-n | trumpet-n | 0.07 | wheel-n | clock-n | 0.32 |
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston