FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2765718396> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2765718396 abstract "Processing Emergent Features in Metaphor Comprehension Asuka Terai (asuka@nm.hum.titech.ac.jp) Global Edge Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 1528550 JAPAN Robert L. Goldstone (rgoldsto@indiana.edu) Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Abstract This study examines the processing of emergent features in metaphors. Emergent features are metaphoric interpretations that are characteristic neither of the target nor the vehicle. In the first experiment, participants were asked to respond as to whether a verbal feature is an appropriate interpretation of the metaphor, which was presented as a prime. They are asked to respond immediately after a tone is presented which has a variable temporal lag after the feature. The timing of each tone controlled the participants’ response times. The results show that the response deadline given to the participants only slightly affected their judgments. In a second experiment, the time to interpret a metaphor was controlled by varying the pre- sentation time of the metaphor. The results showed that emer- gent features require more time for recognition as a metaphoric interpretation than do non-emergent features. The results sup- port the hypothesis that interaction among features causes fea- ture emergence. Keywords: Metaphor comprehension; Fea- ture Emergence; Interaction. Introduction In this research, we examined the process of feature emer- gence, which is realized in comprehension of metaphors tak- ing the form of “ TARGET is VEHICLE. ” Previous pa- pers indicate that interpretations of these metaphors consist of four types of features. These features include common features, target features, vehicle features and emergent fea- tures (Becker 1997, Gineste et al. 2000, Nueckles and Janet- zko 1997). When an interpretation is thought of in relation to both the target and the vehicle, it is regarded as a common feature. When an interpretation is thought of as a characteris- tic of the target (or of the vehicle), it is referred to as a target feature (or a vehicle feature). Finally, emergent features are not typically thought of in relation to either the target or the vehicle alone but do come to mind when the target and vehi- cle enter into a metaphoric comparison. For example, for the metaphor “ Stars are Diamonds, ” the feature “ white ” is a target feature, “ rare ” is a vehicle feature, “ beautiful ” is a common feature because it is listed as a feature when given either “ stars ” or “ diamonds ” by themselves, and “ amaz- ing ” is an emergent feature because it is not listed for either word by itself, but is listed when the words are paired. Previous research (Gineste et al., 2000) has reported that over 60% of metaphoric interpretations were emergent fea- tures. Emergent features are thus prevalent and play an im- portant role in metaphor comprehension. Emergent features required a longer response time to be regarded as a feature of the prime than target or vehicle features, when the features were tested with target-term or vehicle-term primes. When the features were tested with the metaphor as the prime, both the emergent features and non-emergent features required a longer response time than did the target-term or the vehicle- term primes. The emergent features did not change their dura- tion from one prime condition to another. As a result of these experiments, it was concluded that the results are consistent with the interaction theory of metaphor (Black 1962). How- ever, previous results have not examined a difference between processes of emergent features and non-emergent features in metaphor understanding. The interaction theory (Black 1962) suggests that metaphor comprehension is a product of an interaction between the tar- get and the vehicle concepts. The created new meanings by the metaphoric comparison are thought to be the emergent features. In addition, Nueckles and Janetzko (1997) introduce the idea that metaphor comprehension proceeds in analysis- based and synthesis-based stages. According to their idea there must first be an analysis of the lexical meanings of the target and vehicle in analysis-based stage. If the target and vehicle have enough similarity, the metaphor comprehen- sion does not proceed to synthesis-based stage.8 For cases in which the target-vehicle similarity is not sufficient, a shift to synthesis-based processing occurs. Then the metaphor com- prehension is achieved through a construction of new compo- nents of meaning by synthesis of the target and the vehicle. It is during this second phase that emergent features would be generated. Furthermore, previous computational models of metaphor understanding have proposed that emergent features are em- phasized more than non-emergent features through interac- tions among features in metaphor understanding (Utsumi 2000, Terai and Nakagawa 2007, 2008). These models are able to simulate activation of emergent features under this as- sumption. However, these researches did not examine the ex- perimental validity of this assumption that interaction among features causes emergent features. If the assumption is cor- rect, then there should be differences between processes that generate emergent features and non-emergent features dur- ing the interpretation of metaphors. Therfore, one differ- ence would be related to processing times. Emergent features are expected to require more time to be recognized during a metaphoric interpretation than non-emergent features. This study employed two experiments to test the process- ing time of emergent features within metaphor interpretation. The first experiment was conducted using a cue-to-respond" @default.
• W2765718396 created "2017-11-10" @default.
• W2765718396 creator A5029222386 @default.
• W2765718396 creator A5035723712 @default.
• W2765718396 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W2765718396 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2765718396 title "Processing Emergent Features in Metaphor Comprehension - eScholarship" @default.
• W2765718396 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2765718396 type Work @default.
• W2765718396 sameAs 2765718396 @default.
• W2765718396 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2765718396 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2765718396 hasAuthorship W2765718396A5029222386 @default.
• W2765718396 hasAuthorship W2765718396A5035723712 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C2776401178 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C2780583480 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C511192102 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C138885662 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C15744967 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C180747234 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C2776401178 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C2778311575 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C2780583480 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C41008148 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C41895202 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C46312422 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C511192102 @default.
• W2765718396 hasConceptScore W2765718396C527412718 @default.
• W2765718396 hasIssue "33" @default.
• W2765718396 hasLocation W27657183961 @default.
• W2765718396 hasOpenAccess W2765718396 @default.
• W2765718396 hasPrimaryLocation W27657183961 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W1963489395 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2007983621 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2038298093 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2064003475 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2337161218 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2470672767 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2767706421 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2788718039 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2792524133 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2896062597 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2899686780 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2947583529 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2965827519 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2969815362 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2970330404 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W3124132502 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W3176675189 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W619597047 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W2337029972 @default.
• W2765718396 hasRelatedWork W3144774116 @default.
• W2765718396 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W2765718396 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2765718396 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2765718396 magId "2765718396" @default.
• W2765718396 workType "article" @default.