Cover not available

In:Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 105–126

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

On the role of perceptual similarity in producing visual metaphors

 | Indian Institute of Technology Jammu
 |  Jagiellonian University
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.05ojh
Abstract
We explore here the role of perceptual similarity in producing visual metaphors. In the first part of the study, we characterize visual metaphors and show how perceptual similarity is used in various kinds of visual metaphors appearing in advertisements. In the second part, we present two studies that show that perceptual similarity is intuitively recognized, and shape-based perceptual similarity is preferred for pictorial metaphors. Finally, in the third part, we propose a system to generate visual metaphors based on algorithmic perceptual similarity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Part 1: Visual metaphors and perceptual similarity
    • 2.1Introducing visual metaphors
    • 2.2 Production of visual metaphors
    • 2.3Introducing perceptual similarity
    • 2.4Perceptual similarity in visual metaphors
      • 2.4.1Perceptual similarity in juxtaposed visual metaphors
      • 2.4.2Perceptual similarity in homospatial visual metaphors
    • 2.5 Visual metaphors vs. verbal metaphors
  • 3.Part 2: Two empirical studies on the role of perceptual similarity
    • 3.1Study 1: Judgement of perceptual similarity
      • 3.1.1Procedure and task
      • 3.1.2Results
      • 3.1.3 Discussion
    • 3.2Study 2: Shape-based perceptual similarity in the production of visual metaphors
      • 3.2.1Preparation of stimulus material
      • 3.2.2Condition 1
        • 3.2.2.1Participants
        • 3.2.2.2Procedure and task
      • 3.2.3Condition 2
        • 3.2.3.1Participants
        • 3.2.3.2 Procedure and task
      • 3.2.4Results
      • 3.2.5Discussion
  • 4.Part 3: A system to generate perceptually similar images for an intended metaphor
    • 4.1Design approach
    • 4.2System architecture
    • 4.3Perceptual similarity module
    • 4.4Conceptual similarity module
    • 4.5Aptness module, context suggestion and integration tool
    • 4.6Status and evaluation of the system
    • 4.7Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
References (43)
References
Benedek, M., Beaty, R., Jauk, E., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A., Silvia, P. J., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. NeuroImage, 90, 99–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, R., Ojha, A., & Indurkhya, B. (2011). Interpretation of metaphors with perceptual features using Wordnet. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 21–27). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (1994). Visual metaphor. In Aspects of metaphor (pp. 189–218). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). XIII – Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Vol. 110, No. 3, pp. 295–321). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. R. (2013). The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language Studies, 7, 31–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 172–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and gesture (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 31–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Psychology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmon, S. (2015). FIGURE8: A novel system for generating and evaluating figurative language. In Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 71–77).
Hausman, C. R. (1989). Metaphor and art: Interactionism and reference in the verbal and nonverbal arts. CUP Archive.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indurkhya, B., & Ojha, A. (2013). An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors and creativity. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(4), 233–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Interpreting visual metaphors: asymmetry and reversibility. Poetics Today, 38(1), 93–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. G., & Malgady, R. G. (1980). Toward a perceptual theory of metaphoric comprehension. Cognition and Figurative Language, 259–282.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N. (1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: Referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 486–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures. Perception, 11(5), 589–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysar, B., & Glucksberg, S. (1992). Metaphor and communication. Poetics Today, 633–658. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiyoki, Y., Kitagawa, T., & Hayama, T. (1994). A metadatabase system for semantic image search by a mathematical model of meaning. ACM Sigmod Record, 23(4), 34–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. J. (1987). Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(3), 219–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. J., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ojha, A. (2013). An experimental study on visual metaphor . PhD Dissertation. International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, India.
Ojha, A., Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Indurkhya, B. (2019). Similarities and differences between verbal and visual metaphor processing: An EEG study. Multimodal Communication, 8(2), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ojha, A., & Indurkhya, B. (2016). On the role of perceptual features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Communication, 147–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasmussen, R. V. (1991). A communication model based on the conduit metaphor: What do we know and what do we take for granted?. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3), 363–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H. (2009). Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: The case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 155–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tandon, P., Nigam, P., Pudi, V., & Jawahar, C. V. (2008). FISH: A practical system for fast interactive image search in huge databases. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Content-based image and video retrieval (pp. 369–378). ACM.
Tversky, B. (1997). Cognitive principles of graphic displays. In AAAI 1997 fall symposium on reasoning with diagrammatic representations (pp. 8–10).
Uno, R, Matsuda, E., & Indurkhya, B. (2019). Analyzing visual metaphor and metonymy to understand creativity in fashion. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Cozijn, R. (2011). The role of shape in comparing objects: How perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 272–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weelden, L. (2013). Metaphor in good shape (Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ojha, A., Gola, E., & Indurkhya, B. (2018). Are hybrid pictorial metaphors perceived more strongly than pictorial similes?. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(4), 253–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Schilperoord, J., & Maes, A. (2017). Different but the same: Mental representations of negated similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(1), 19–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2013). A service-oriented architecture for computational creativity. Journal of Computing Science and Engineering, 7(3), 159–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2007). Comprehending and generating apt metaphors: A web-driven, case-based approach to figurative language. In AAAI (Vol. 2007, pp. 1471–1476).
(2008). A fluid knowledge representation for understanding and generating creative metaphors. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 945–952). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Whittock, T. (1990). Metaphor and film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, L. F. (1987). The metaphor machine: A database method for creativity support. Decision Support Systems, 3(4), 309–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
You, W., & Zhou, C. L. (2007). Chinese metaphor generation model and its implementation based on statistical approach [J]. Mind and Computation, 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zhong, Zenan, Suijun Wen & Shukun Chen
2023. Research trends in multimodal metaphor: a bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Ervas, Francesca, Artur Gunia, Giuseppe Lorini, Georgi Stojanov & Bipin Indurkhya
2022. Fostering Safe Behaviors via Metaphor-Based Nudging Technologies. In Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2021 Collocated Workshops [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13230], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue