What makes a metaphor literary? Answers from two computational studies

ABSTRACT In this article we investigate structural differences between “literary” metaphors created by renowned poets and “nonliterary” ones imagined by non-professional authors from Katz et al.’s 1988 corpus. We provide data from quantitative narrative analyses (QNA) of the altogether 464 metaphors on over 70 variables, including surface features like metaphor length, phonological features like sonority score, or syntactic-semantic features like sentence similarity. In a first computational study using machine learning tools (i.e., a classifier of the decision tree family) we show that Katz et al.’s literary metaphors can be successfully discriminated from their nonliterary ones on the basis of response measures (10 ratings), in particular the ratings for familiarity, ease of interpretation, semantic relatedness, and comprehensibility. A second computational study then shows that the classifier can reliably detect and predict between-group differences on the basis of five QNA features generalizing from a training to a test corpus. Our results shed light on surface and semantic features that co-determine the reception of metaphors and raise important questions about their literariness, aptness or poetic potential. They tentatively suggest a set of 11 features that could influence the “literariness” of metaphors, including their sonority score, length and surprisal value.

[1]  Roel M. Willems,et al.  The Fictive Brain: Neurocognitive Correlates of Engagement in Literature , 2018, Review of General Psychology.

[2]  Arthur M. Jacobs,et al.  Explorations in an English Poetry Corpus: A Neurocognitive Poetics Perspective , 2018, ArXiv.

[3]  Arthur M. Jacobs,et al.  Quantifying the Beauty of Words: A Neurocognitive Poetics Perspective , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[4]  A. Jacobs,et al.  What’s in the brain that ink may character ….: A quantitative narrative analysis of Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets for use in (Neuro-)cognitive poetics , 2017 .

[5]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Chapter 4. Immersion into narrative and poetic worlds: A neurocognitive poetics perspective , 2017 .

[6]  A. Jacobs,et al.  “The Brain Is the Prisoner of Thought”: A Machine-Learning Assisted Quantitative Narrative Analysis of Literary Metaphors for Use in Neurocognitive Poetics , 2017 .

[7]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Rhetoric, Neurocognitive Poetics, and the Aesthetics of Adaptation , 2017 .

[8]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[9]  Christine E. Watson,et al.  Stimulus needs are a moving target: 240 additional matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[10]  A. Jacobs,et al.  On the Relation between the General Affective Meaning and the Basic Sublexical, Lexical, and Inter-lexical Features of Poetic Texts—A Case Study Using 57 Poems of H. M. Enzensberger , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[11]  A. Jacobs,et al.  On Elementary Affective Decisions: To Like Or Not to Like, That Is the Question , 2016, Frontiers in psychology.

[12]  H. Leder,et al.  Berlyne Revisited: Evidence for the Multifaceted Nature of Hedonic Tone in the Appreciation of Paintings and Music , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  A. Chatterjee,et al.  Aptness and beauty in metaphor , 2016, Language and Cognition.

[14]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Measuring the Basic Affective Tone of Poems via Phonological Saliency and Iconicity , 2016 .

[15]  Roel M. Willems,et al.  Caring About Dostoyevsky: The Untapped Potential of Studying Literature , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension , 2015, Cognition.

[17]  J. Haynes A Primer on Pattern-Based Approaches to fMRI: Principles, Pitfalls, and Perspectives , 2015, Neuron.

[18]  Benny B. Briesemeister,et al.  10 years of BAWLing into affective and aesthetic processes in reading: what are the echoes? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[19]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[20]  A. Jacobs Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[21]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Extracting salient sublexical units from written texts: “Emophon,” a corpus-based approach to phonological iconicity , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[22]  Stefan L. Frank,et al.  Uncertainty Reduction as a Measure of Cognitive Load in Sentence Comprehension , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[23]  A. Jacobs,et al.  When we like what we know – A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity , 2013, Brain and Language.

[24]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  Visualizing multiple word similarity measures , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[25]  Yves Bestgen,et al.  Checking and bootstrapping lexical norms by means of word similarity indexes , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[26]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[27]  A. Chatterjee,et al.  Stimulus design is an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[28]  Petr Sojka,et al.  Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora , 2010 .

[29]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico‐phonological processing in visual word recognition , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[30]  R. Gibbs The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought , 2008 .

[31]  D. Chiappe,et al.  The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. , 2007 .

[32]  Zuhair Bandar,et al.  Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[33]  Pierre Geurts,et al.  Extremely randomized trees , 2006, Machine Learning.

[34]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Syllable structure and sonority in language inventory and aphasic neologisms , 2005, Brain and Language.

[35]  Gerard J. Steen,et al.  Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition , 2004 .

[36]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[37]  Thomas G. Dietterich An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization , 2000, Machine Learning.

[38]  Arthur M. Jacobs,et al.  What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English , 1997 .

[39]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[40]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Phonological Information Provides Early Sources of Constraint in the Processing of Letter Strings , 1995 .

[41]  Keith Sanger The Language of Fiction , 1995, The Work of Fire.

[42]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Models of visual word recognition: Sampling the state of the art. , 1994 .

[43]  R. Gibbs The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding , 1994 .

[44]  P. Werth Extended Metaphor—a Text-World Account , 1994 .

[45]  J. Glicksohn,et al.  Metaphor and gestalt: interaction theory revisited , 1993 .

[46]  Albert N. Katz,et al.  Psychological Studies in Metaphor Processing: Extensions to the Placement of Terms in Semantic Space , 1992 .

[47]  G. Clements Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification , 1990 .

[48]  Richard A. Harshman,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[49]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets , 1990, Comput. Humanit..

[50]  Allan Paivio,et al.  Norms for 204 Literary and 260 Nonliterary Metaphors on 10 Psychological Dimensions , 1988 .

[51]  T. A. Dijk Advice on theoretical poetics , 1979 .

[52]  D. Berlyne Aesthetics and psychobiology , 1975 .

[53]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Mood-empathic and aesthetic responses in poetry reception: A model-guided, multilevel, multimethod approach , 2016 .

[54]  A. Jacobs The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art , 2015 .

[55]  A. Jacobs Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use: Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading , 2014 .

[56]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Gehirn und Gedicht : wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren , 2011 .

[57]  G. Tutz,et al.  An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. , 2009, Psychological methods.

[58]  Yeshayahu Shen,et al.  Cognitive constraints on poetic figures , 1997 .

[59]  H. Vendler,et al.  The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets. , 1997 .

[60]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  When parting is such sweet sorrow: The comprehension and appreciation of oxymora , 1994 .

[61]  A. Damasio,et al.  What’s in a Brain That Ink May Character? , 1985 .