Cover not available

Article published In: Current challenges in metaphor research
Edited by Nina Julich-Warpakowski and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Metaphor and the Social World 13:1] 2023
► pp. 59–80

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

Semantic distance predicts metaphoricity and creativity judgments in synesthetic metaphors

 | University of Birmingham
 | Università di Genova
Published online: 7 July 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00029.win
Abstract
This paper discusses a way of operationalizing metaphoricity quantitatively using a numerical measure of the semantic distance between two domains. We demonstrate the construct validity of this measure with respect to metaphoricity and creativity judgments in the domain of English synesthetic metaphors – expressions such as sweet melody and loud color that involve combinations of terms from conceptually distinct sensory modalities. In a pre-registered study, we find that a continuous measure of sensory modality difference predicts metaphoricity and creativity judgments. While our results use synesthetic metaphors as a test case, it is possible to extend the application of our measure of semantic distance to other metaphorical expressions. In addition to demonstrating the utility of this measure, this work also demonstrates the utility of rating data in the domain of metaphor research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Modality ratings
    • 2.2Synesthetic metaphors and cosine similarity
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Pre-registration and data availability
    • 3.2Stimulus creation
    • 3.3Word frequencies
    • 3.4Participants
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Data exclusion
    • 3.7Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Experiment 1: Metaphoricity
    • 4.2Experiment 2: Creativity
    • 4.3Correlation between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C., & Vuorre, M. (2019). Ordinal regression models in psychology: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Strik Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-R. (2019). Semantic distance and creativity in linguistic synaesthesia. In R. Otoguro, M. Komachi, & T. Ohkuma (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 370–378). Waseda Institute for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2016a). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Looking into introspection. In G. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications (pp. 55–74). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, D. (2000). Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1(1), 35–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2015). Modeling abstractness and metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 259–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. (pp. 403–459). American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2–18). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M. (2019). Vector-space models of semantic representation from a cognitive perspective: A discussion of common misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1006–1033. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 17–35). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, L. (2015). Metaphor and metonymy. In R. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 129–150).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and cognition. An interactionist approach. Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Megastudies, crowdsourcing, and large datasets in psycholinguistics: An overview of recent developments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1457–1468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Black, P., & Moberg, D. P. (2019). Straightlining: Overview of measurement, comparison of indicators, and effects in mail–web mixed-mode surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 37(2), 214–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2010). A note on an asymmetry in the hedonic implicatures of olfactory and gustatory terms. In S. Fuchs, P. Hoole, C. Mooshammer, & M. Żygis (Eds.), Between the regular and the particular in speech and language (pp. 235–245). Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(2), 211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 41, 151–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, A. K. -y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts.” Psychological Science, 23(5), 502–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, 28(2), 203–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 516–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2019). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medler, D. A., Arnoldussen, A., Binder, J. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). The Wisconsin perceptual attribute ratings database. Retrieved from [URL]
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p2), 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popova, Y. (2005). Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 291, pp. 395–419). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prandi, M. (2017). Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ronga, I. (2016). Taste synaesthesias: Linguistic features and neurophysiological bases. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and Communication (pp. 47–60). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, G. G., Keitel, A., Becirspahic, M., Yao, B., & Sereno, S. C. (2019). The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1258–1270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stadtlander, L. M., & Murdoch, L. D. (2000). Frequency of occurrence and rankings for touch-related adjectives. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(4), 579–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Figures and the senses. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1959). The principles of semantics. Jackson, Son & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vecchi, E. M., Marelli, M., Zamparelli, R., & Baroni, M. (2017). Spicy adjectives and nominal donkeys: Capturing semantic deviance using compositionality in distributional spaces. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 102–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wan, M., Ahrens, K., Chersoni, E., Jiang, M., Su, Q., Xiang, R., & Huang, C.-R. (2020). Using conceptual norms for metaphor detection. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, 104–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wan, M., Xing, B., Qi Su Liu, P., & Huang, C.-R. (2020). Sensorimotor enhanced neural network for metaphor detection. Proceedings of the 34th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 312–317.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., & Hester, J. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2016). Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphor. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Managing semantic norms for cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, and lexicon studies. In A. L. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, E. Koller, & L. B. Collister (Eds.), The open handbook of linguistic data management. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 1791, 213–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B., & Srinivasan, M. (2021). Why is semantic change asymmetric? The role of concreteness and word frequency in metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, C., & Conrad, F. (2014). Speeding in web surveys: The tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods, 8(2), 127–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

DiStefano, Paul V., John D. Patterson & Roger E. Beaty
2025. Automatic Scoring of Metaphor Creativity with Large Language Models. Creativity Research Journal 37:4 ► pp. 555 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Chu-Ren, Qingqing Zhao, Kathleen Ahrens, Zhao Wang & Yunfei Long
2025. Linguistic synesthesia and embodiment: A study based on Mandarin modality exclusivity norms. Language Sciences 109 ► pp. 101715 ff. DOI logo
Nadler, Ethan O., Douglas Guilbeault, Sofronia M. Ringold, T. R. Williamson, Antoine Bellemare‐Pepin, Iulia M. Comșa, Karim Jerbi, Srini Narayanan & Lisa Aziz‐Zadeh
2025. Statistical or Embodied? Comparing Colorseeing, Colorblind, Painters, and Large Language Models in Their Processing of Color Metaphors. Cognitive Science 49:7 DOI logo
Winter, Bodo & Francesca Strik-Lievers
2025. Linguistic Synesthesia, DOI logo
Hartman, Jenny & Carita Paradis
2023. The language of sound: events and meaning multitasking of words. Cognitive Linguistics 34:3-4 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Chao, Juntao Liu, Jingping Liu, Sihang Jiang, Zhixu Li & Yanghua Xiao
2023. Sweet Apple, company? or food? Adjective-centric commonsense knowledge acquisition with taxonomy-guided induction. Knowledge-Based Systems 280 ► pp. 110988 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 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