语义距离在视觉隐喻中的作用

M. V. Mulken, L. Lagerwerf, I. Blokland
{"title":"语义距离在视觉隐喻中的作用","authors":"M. V. Mulken, L. Lagerwerf, I. Blokland","doi":"10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":192335,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"De rol van semantische afstand in visuele metaforen\",\"authors\":\"M. V. Mulken, L. Lagerwerf, I. Blokland\",\"doi\":\"10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":192335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

两个并列物体之间的语义距离在视觉感知中的作用尚未得到深入的研究。信息处理在视觉隐喻和语义上近的物体(下义词)之间,或者在视觉隐喻和语义上远的物体之间有区别吗?可能是语义距离导致观众识别视觉隐喻的速度比下位词慢。另一方面,他们可能比具有相似语义距离的物体更快地识别视觉隐喻,但没有任何比较的基础(ad hoc group)。第一个实验的反应延迟识别27对对象揭示了这样的模式,由事后理解措施的支持。在第二个实验中,教学从认同变成了欣赏。反应延迟总体上更短。对于特别组,反应延迟比下义词和视觉隐喻都要长。下义词比其他两组更受欢迎。视觉隐喻的记忆力比特别小组的记忆力更好。我们得出结论,较小的语义距离确实有助于识别和欣赏对象对。与我们的预期相反,视觉隐喻具有相对较大的语义距离和比较基础,却不受欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
De rol van semantische afstand in visuele metaforen
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信