Abstract
| Translated title of the contribution | The role of semantic distance in visual metaphors |
|---|---|
| Original language | Dutch |
| Pages (from-to) | 215-228 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 15 May 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- ad hoc category
- visual metaphor
- semantic distance
- response latencies
- juxtaposition
- hyponyms
Cite this
}
De rol van semantische afstand in visuele metaforen. / van Mulken, M.; Lagerwerf, L.; Blokland, Iris.
In: Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, Vol. 41, No. 1, 15.05.2019, p. 215-228.Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - De rol van semantische afstand in visuele metaforen
AU - van Mulken, M.
AU - Lagerwerf, L.
AU - Blokland, Iris
PY - 2019/5/15
Y1 - 2019/5/15
N2 - The role of semantic distance between two juxtaposed objects has not been studied thoroughly in visual perception. Does information processing differ between visual metaphors and semantically close objects (hyponyms), or between visual metaphors and semantically distant objects? Probably, semantic distance causes viewers to identify visual metaphors less fast than hyponyms. On the other hand, they might identify visual metaphors faster than objects with similar semantic distance, but without any ground for comparison (ad hoc group). A first experiment with response latencies for identification of 27 object pairs revealed such a pattern, supported by post hoc comprehension measures. In a second experiment, instruction was changed from identification into appreciation. Response latencies were shorter overall. For the ad hoc group, response latencies were longer than for both hyponyms and visual metaphors. Hyponyms were appreciated more than both other groups. Recall was better for visual metaphors than for the ad hoc group. We conclude that a smaller semantic distance indeed helps to identify and appreciate object pairs. Contrary to our expectation, visual metaphors, with a relatively larger semantic distance and a ground for comparison, were not appreciated most.
AB - The role of semantic distance between two juxtaposed objects has not been studied thoroughly in visual perception. Does information processing differ between visual metaphors and semantically close objects (hyponyms), or between visual metaphors and semantically distant objects? Probably, semantic distance causes viewers to identify visual metaphors less fast than hyponyms. On the other hand, they might identify visual metaphors faster than objects with similar semantic distance, but without any ground for comparison (ad hoc group). A first experiment with response latencies for identification of 27 object pairs revealed such a pattern, supported by post hoc comprehension measures. In a second experiment, instruction was changed from identification into appreciation. Response latencies were shorter overall. For the ad hoc group, response latencies were longer than for both hyponyms and visual metaphors. Hyponyms were appreciated more than both other groups. Recall was better for visual metaphors than for the ad hoc group. We conclude that a smaller semantic distance indeed helps to identify and appreciate object pairs. Contrary to our expectation, visual metaphors, with a relatively larger semantic distance and a ground for comparison, were not appreciated most.
KW - ad hoc category
KW - visual metaphor
KW - semantic distance
KW - response latencies
KW - juxtaposition
KW - hyponyms
M3 - Article
VL - 41
SP - 215
EP - 228
JO - Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing
JF - Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing
SN - 0166-4379
IS - 1
ER -