FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2395117008> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2395117008 abstract "Individuals’ Process of Metaphor Interpretations and Interestingness Cognition Tomohiro Taira (cogpsy.t.taira@gmail.com) Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, Osaka City University 3-3-138 Sugimoto Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka-shi 558-8585, Japan Takashi Kusumi (kusumi@educ.kyoto-u.ac.jp) Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan Akira Utsumi (utsumi@inf.uec.ac.jp) Department of Informatics and Engineering, The University of Electro-Communications 1-5-1, Chofugaoka, Chofushi, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan Abstract In this paper, we investigated the process of interestingness cognition in metaphor comprehension. We did this from the point of view that the interestingness of a metaphor (e.g., “life is like a gamble”) is related to its interpretative diversity. Two studies were conducted to assess this phenomenon: Study 1 (interpretation-production) and Study 2 (interpretation- presentation study). In Study 1, we observed that a greater number of interpretations were produced from a metaphor that was interesting and easy to understand as compared to one that was less interesting and difficult to understand. In Study 2, we observed that a metaphor was more interesting when more information on simile interpretation was presented. On the basis of these results, we discuss the relationship between the process of metaphor comprehension and metaphor evaluation. Keywords: metaphor/simile comprehension; interpretive diversity; interestingness. Introduction Sentences such as “life is like a gamble” and “marriage is like a refrigerator” include comparative senses. Such sentences, consisting of a paired topic and vehicle, which we refer to as a “metaphor” (strictly a “simile”), indicates similar points between two words: life is like a gamble (both unpredictable and implying risk) and marriage cools a relationship or keeps it fresh, as does a refrigerator for its contents. Similarity is very important for metaphor comprehension. Recent studies have discussed similarity cognition or the factors that affect similarity cognition in metaphor comprehension. In fact, most studies discuss the relationships between similarity cognition and the process of metaphor comprehension (e.g., Gentner, 1983; Ortony, 1979; Tversky, 1977). The Process of Metaphor Comprehension Similarity cognition in metaphor comprehension is described simply as “the similarity between the topic and vehicle.” The question of similarity involves two forms of nuance: the qualitative sense and the quantitative sense. As illustrated in aptness views (e.g., Chiappe & Kennedy, 1999; Chiappe, Kennedy, & Smykowski, 2003; Jones & Estes, 2006), the former refers to the degree (“goodness” and “adequacy”) to which the topic and vehicle are similar. As defined in Chiappe and Kennedy (2001), goodness and adequacy indicate the extent to which a comparison captures the important features of the topic. For example, gamble includes features salient in, and applicable to, the nature of life: in gambling’s sense of “unpredictability,” gamble adequately represents an important aspect of life. Likewise, both a refrigerator and marriage cool something, but marriage is comparatively difficult to express with a refrigerator. Previous studies have shown that this type of similarity affects the process of metaphor comprehension. Jones and Estes (2006) experimentally revealed that the strength of metaphor aptness predicts metaphor/simile preference, reading time for a metaphor, and the ease of interpretation of a metaphor. An apt relationship between the topic and vehicle creates a preferential metaphorical (categorical) expression, is read faster, and is rated as easier to understand than a less apt relationship. According to the quantitative view, similarity cognition is based on the number of features shared by both the topic and the vehicle. If this number is large, similarity cognition between the topic and vehicle is strong. In the process of metaphor comprehension, these shared features are generated as metaphor interpretation: the metaphor with the most shared features is predicted to produce the most interpretations. In previous studies, simulation results have shown reliable evidence that the productivity of metaphor interpretation, such as interpretative diversity (Utsumi & Kuwabara, 2006; Utsumi, 2007), is more closely related to the process of metaphor comprehension than to the goodness of similarity (i.e., metaphor aptness). Thus, the topic-vehicle relationship that produces several interpretations is the preferred metaphor or simile. The Process of Metaphor Evaluation As described above, the similarity cognition of a metaphor plays an important role in the process of metaphor comprehension. On the other hand, some previous studies have suggested that similarity cognition is also related to the process of metaphor evaluation, such as the rhetoric effect and how funny and interesting a metaphor is." @default.
• W2395117008 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2395117008 creator A5003814586 @default.
• W2395117008 creator A5025094146 @default.
• W2395117008 creator A5087865298 @default.
• W2395117008 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2395117008 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2395117008 title "Individuals’ process of metaphor interpretations and interestingness cognition" @default.
• W2395117008 cites W1581443427 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W1965080662 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W1991712964 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W1992489124 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W1993190512 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2008355149 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2008425954 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2026161499 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2039399648 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2041542944 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2059975159 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2063319923 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2080229826 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2085639768 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2131275378 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2142447366 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2168453552 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2324195855 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2571856668 @default.
• W2395117008 cites W2587568630 @default.
• W2395117008 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2395117008 type Work @default.
• W2395117008 sameAs 2395117008 @default.
• W2395117008 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2395117008 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2395117008 hasAuthorship W2395117008A5003814586 @default.
• W2395117008 hasAuthorship W2395117008A5025094146 @default.
• W2395117008 hasAuthorship W2395117008A5087865298 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C2780139471 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C511192102 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C138885662 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C15744967 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C169760540 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C169900460 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C180747234 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C2778311575 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C2780139471 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C41895202 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C511192102 @default.
• W2395117008 hasConceptScore W2395117008C527412718 @default.
• W2395117008 hasIssue "34" @default.
• W2395117008 hasLocation W23951170081 @default.
• W2395117008 hasOpenAccess W2395117008 @default.
• W2395117008 hasPrimaryLocation W23951170081 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W1886284977 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2015507478 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2032074630 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2036657943 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2045126157 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2052542167 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2059128843 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2285430934 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2313613599 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2347130015 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2350193999 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2360618606 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2387363312 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2405708774 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2511080464 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2901408543 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2972816321 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W3185226316 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W902229572 @default.
• W2395117008 hasRelatedWork W2528359856 @default.
• W2395117008 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W2395117008 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2395117008 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2395117008 magId "2395117008" @default.
• W2395117008 workType "article" @default.