Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton April 28, 2019

Similarity is closeness: Using distributional semantic spaces to model similarity in visual and linguistic metaphors

  • Marianna Bolognesi EMAIL logo and Laura Aina

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

TargetSourceSimilarityTargetSourceSimilarity
accumulation-nriver-n0.07homeland-nhouse-n0.31
army-nmotion-n0.13idea-nobject-n0.3
aspect-nsurface-n0.17idea-npoint-n0.31
aspect-nmoney-n0.08institution-nequipment-n0.19
attention-neye-n0.2judgment-nfinger-n0.07
attitude-ngas-n0.09knowledge-nbrightness-n0.16
body-ncanvas-n0.2manner-npath-n0.05
center-nheart-n0.21opinion-npicture-n0.24
condition-nobject-n0.29opinion-neye-n0.1
consequence-nfood-n0.1opportunity-ndoor-n0.1
consideration-nappearance-n0.15organization-nbuilding-n0.25
constraint-nobstacle-n0.35partner-nfood-n0.15
decision-nmovement-n0.22plant-nperson-n0.29
decision-npath-n0.16possibility-nspace-n0.27
discipline-nplace-n0.2provider-norigin-n0.09
discussion-nwar-n0.29purpose-ndestination-n0.12
emotion-ntide-n0.13rank-nlocation-n0.18
emotion-nforce-n0.18reason-npoint-n0.16
end-ncloth-n0.05reason-nlocation-n0.18
explanation-ndrawing-n0.24rubbish-nfeces-n0.18
factory-norganism-n0.16situation-nair-n0.14
feces-nfood-n0.32success-ncondition-n0.2
food-ngold-n0.18time-nframe-n0.17
governance-nforce-n0.13toy-ngirl-n0.29
harsh-jhard-j0.26understand-vsee-v0.45

Visual Metaphors

TargetSourceSimilarityTargetSourceSimilarity
airplane-nbread-n0.1globe-nice-cream-n0.04
airplane-nswan-n0.17hand-nfork-n0.19
america-ncrocodile-n0.06hand-nzebra-n0.06
bank-nbeggar-n0.14hand-nbulldozer-n0.12
barcode-njail-n0.02jeep-nrhino-n0.08
beggar-nbomb-n0.07kid-npiglet-n0.22
bomb-nflower-n0.16missile-ndove-n0.1
book-ntree-n0.14mouth-nonion-n0.03
bottle-nbullet-n0.18mouthwash-nbomb-n0.09
brain-nnewspaper-n0.11newspaper-nmanhole-n0.05
brain-nturtle-n0.12octopus-ntire-n0.08
car-ndolphin-n0.16pen-nbullet-n0.21
car-nhorse-n0.43pen-nthermometer-n0.35
car-npepper-n0.08perfume-ndoorway-n0.04
cart-njail-n0.1president-nsun-n0.05
cart-ntank-n0.34president-nlion-n0.12
cigarette-nmaze-n0.03radio-nbeggar-n0.08
coke-ndandelion-n0.06seagull-nbook-n0.06
country-nbomb-n0.06seaweed-nplastic-n0.22
country-ndrain-n0.1skin-nmatch-n0.06
cream-ndandelion-n0.1sun-nyolk-n0.03
cup-nswitch-n0.2sweater-ngorilla-n0.05
dollar-ncarpet-n0.1terrorist-nmatch-n0.07
dove-ntarget-n0.09tablet-ntrainer-n0.11
elephant-ntrumpet-n0.07wheel-nclock-n0.32

B. Conventional linguistic metaphors

TargetSourceTargetSource
aspect-nsurface-nidea-npoint-n
attention-neye-nmanner-npath-n
center-nheart-nopinion-npicture-n
constraint-nobstacle-nopportunity-ndoor-n
discussion-nwar-npossibility-nspace-n
explanation-ndrawing-npurpose-ndestination-n
governance-nforce-nreason-npoint-n
harsh-jhard-junderstand-vsee-v

C. Reformulated visual metaphors

TargetSourceSimilarityTargetSourceSimilarity
gift-nseparation-n0.17earth-nice-cream-n0.04
airline-nswan-n0.17help-nhand-n0.16
america-ncrocodile-n0.06help-nhand-n0.16
bank-nbeggar-n0.14hand-nmachine-n0.27
market-njail-n0.1jeep-nrhino-n0.08
poverty-nbomb-n0.06kid-npiglet-n0.22
war-npeace-n0.17war-npeace-n0.17
knowledge-nplant-n0.19breath-nonion-n0.03
alcohol-nweapon-n0.21mouthwash-nexplosive-n0.19
intelligence-nreading-n0.32news-nrubbish-n0.16
brain-nturtle-n0.12tentacle-ntire-n0.12
car-ndolphin-n0.16signature-nweapon-n0.32
car-nhorse-n0.43pen-nthermometer-n0.35
car-npepper-n0.08perfume-nescape-n0.12
market-njail-n0.1leader-nsun-n0.09
market-ntank-n0.19president-npredator-n0.16
smoking-nmaze-n0.03radio-nbeggar-n0.08
low-fat-jlight-j0.13reading-nflight-n0.33
country-nbomb-n0.06seaweed-nrubbish-n0.19
country-ndrain-n0.1skin-nfire-n0.1
cream-ndandelion-n0.1sun-nlife-n0.09
coffee-nswitch-n0.14sweater-ngorilla-n0.05
economy-ncarpet-n0.07terrorist-nfire-n0.15
peace-ntarget-n0.16technology-ntrainer-n0.22
elephant-ntrumpet-n0.07wheel-nclock-n0.32
Published Online: 2019-04-28
Published in Print: 2019-05-27

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cllt-2016-0061/html
Scroll to top button