Cogprints
Login | Create Account

Contextual Effects on Metaphor Comprehension: Experiment and Simulation

Lemaire, Benoit and Bianco, Maryse (2003) Contextual Effects on Metaphor Comprehension: Experiment and Simulation. [Conference Paper]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
34Kb

Abstract

This paper presents a computational model of referential metaphor comprehension. This model is designed on top of Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), a model of the representation of word and text meanings. Compre­hending a referential metaphor consists in scanning the semantic neighbors of the metaphor in order to find words that are also semantically related to the context. The depth of that search is compared to the time it takes for humans to process a metaphor. In particular, we are interested in two independent variables : the nature of the reference (either a literal meaning or a figurative meaning) and the nature of the context (inductive or not inductive). We show that, for both humans and model, first, metaphors take longer to process than the literal meanings and second, an inductive context can shorten the processing time.

Item Type:Conference Paper
Keywords:Latent Semantic Analysis metaphor simulation
Subjects:Computer Science > Language
Linguistics > Semantics
Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
ID Code:3205
Deposited By:Lemaire, Benoit
Deposited On:09 Oct 2003
Last Modified:12 Sep 2007 17:49

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Budiu, R. & Anderson, J.R. (2002). Comprehending Anaphoric Metaphors. Memory and Cognition, 30, 158-165.

Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K. & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 391-407.

Duvignau, K., Gasquet, O., Gaume, B. & Gineste, M. (2002). Categorization of Actions By Analogy: From the Analysis of Metaphoric Utterances to a Computational Model. Proceedings of the 15th International FLAIRS Conference. AAAI.

Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T.K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.

Gibbs, W.R. (1994). Figurative Thought and Figurative Language. In Gernsbacher, M.A (Ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Academy Press. 411-446.

Gildea, P. & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 57-590.

Glucksberg, S. (2001) On the fate(s) of litteral meanings. In Proceeding of the Workshop "Towards on Experimental Pragmatics". Lyon, France.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension, a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: a Computational Theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257-266.

Landauer, T.K. & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction and Representation of Knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211-240.

Landauer T.K. (2002). On the computational basis of learning and cognition: Arguments from LSA. In N. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 41, 43-84.

Lemaire, B., Bianco, M., Sylvestre, E. & Noveck, I. (2001). Un modèle de compréhension de textes fondé sur l'analyse de la sémantique latente. In H. Paugam-Moisy, V. Nyckees, J. Caron-Pargue (Eds.) La cognition entre individu et société (Proceedings of the ARCo'2001 Conference). Hermès, 309-320.

McElree, B. & Nordlie, J (1999). Literal and Figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 486-494.

Markert, K. & Hahn, U. (2002). Understanding metonymies in discourse. Artificial Intelligence, 135(1-2), 145-198.

Martin, J.H. (1994). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Context Effects on Metaphor Comprehension. Technical report, University of Colorado. CU-CS-738-94.

Noveck, I.A., Bianco, M. & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1-2), 109-121.

Onishi, K.H. & Murphy, G.L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: when metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 763-772.

Rehder, B., Schreiner, M.E., Wolfe, M.B.W., Laham, D., Landauer, T.K. & Kintsch, W. (1998). Using Latent Semantic Analysis to Assess Knowledge: some Technical Considerations. Discourse Processes, 25, 337-354.

Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In O. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, 92-123.

Thomas, M.S.C., Mareschal, D. & Hinds, A.C. (2001). A connectionist account of the emergence of the literal-metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1042-1047.

Wolfe, M.B.W., Schreiner, M.E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer T.K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching Readers and Texts by Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.