Cover not available
Part of
Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 99–122

Chapter 4
VisMet and the crowd

What social tagging reveals about visual metaphors

| University of Oxford
| VU University Amsterdam
| VU University Amsterdam

This chapter describes the data collection and analysis related to a new digital resource soon to be added to the VisMet 1.0 corpus of visual metaphor (http://​www​.vismet​.org​/VisMet/, Bolognesi, van den Heerik, van den Berg, 2018), consisting of crowdsourced tags. Tags are keywords used by online coders, non-expert of metaphors, to annotate and describe the images to which they were exposed, for different amounts of seconds.

The semantic information retrieved through this Social tagging experiment allows us to explore the type of information that users extract from visual metaphors, in a setting that better resembles the natural environment in which these images are usually experienced (i.e., for very limited amounts of seconds). We hereby provide methodological guidelines on this innovative procedure and report the results of our data collection and content analysis in which we manually classified the type of semantic information encoded in the tags.

Keywords: visual metaphor, social tagging, crowdsourcing task, metaphor processing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Tags as traces of human behavior
    • 2.2Visual metaphor comprehension and interpretation
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Crowdsourcing tags
    • 3.2Classifying tags
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Crowdsourcing tags
    • 4.2Classifying tags
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.05bol
References
Ames, M., & Naaman, M.
(2007) Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference 2007 (pp. 971–980). New York: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aroyo, L., & Welty, C.
(2014) The three sides Crowd Truth. Human Computation, 1(1), 31–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artstein, R., & Poesio, M.
(2008) Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34, 555–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M.
(2016) Flickr distributional tagspace: Evaluating the semantic spaces emerging from flickr tags distributions. In M. Jones (Ed.), Big data in cognitive science (pp. 144–173). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017a) Conceptual metaphors and metaphorical expressions in images. In A. Baicchi, & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modelling in language and discourse across cultures (pp. 367–383). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2017b) Using semantic feature norms to investigate how the visual and verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition 9(3), 525–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., Pilgram R., & Van den Heerik R.
(2017) Reliability in semantic categorization: The case of semantic feature norms classification. Behavior Research Methods 49(6), 1984–2001. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., van den Heerik, R., & van den Berg, E.
(2018) VisMet: an online corpus of visual metaphors. In G. J. Steen (Ed.) , Visual metaphor: Structure and process (pp. 89–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cattuto, C., Barrat, A., Baldassarri, A., Schehr, G., & Loreto, V.
(2009) Collective dynamics of social annotation. PNAS, 106(26), 10511–10515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, E.
(2003) Understanding visual metaphors: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2, 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C.
(1996) Pictorial metaphors in advertising. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E
(Eds.) (2009) Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heckner, M., Heilemann, M., & Wolff, C.
(2009) Personal information management vs. resource sharing: Towards a model of information behaviour in social tagging systems. Proceedings of the Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM) (pp. 42–49).
Jones, M. N.
(Ed.) (2016) Big data in cognitive science. New York: Taylor and Francis Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kremer, G., & Baroni, M.
(2011) A set of semantic norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Le Pair, R., & Van Mulken, M.
(2010) Effects of verbal anchoring in visual metaphors on perceived complexity and appreciation. In A. V. Prokhorov (Ed.), Topical issues of advertising: Theory and practice (Vol. II, pp. 26–36). Tambov: TSU.Google Scholar
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D.
(2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M.
(2006) HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 31–40). DOI logo
McRae, K., Cree, G., Seidenberg, M., & McNorgan, C.
(2005) Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavioral Research Methods, 37, 547–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C.
(2009). Motivational, structural and tenure factors that impact online community photo sharing. Proceedings of AAAI international conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM 2009) .
Phillips, B., & McQuarrie, E.
(2004) Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4, 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M.
(2004) Discourse annotation and semantic annotation in the GNOME corpus. Proceedings of the 2004 ACL workshop on discourse annotation (pp. 72–79). DOI logo
Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N.
(2012) The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, J.
(2018) Ways with pictures, visual incongruities and metaphor. In G. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J.
(2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strohmaier M., Körner, C., & Kern, R.
(2012) Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study. Web Semantics, 17, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G. J.
(2018) VisMip: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. In G. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual Metaphor: Structure and Process (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hooft, A., van Mulken, M., & Nedergist, U.
(2013) Cultural differences? Visual metaphor in advertising: Comprehension and tolerance in ambiguity in four European countries. In S. Rosengren, M. Dahlén, & S. Okazaki (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. IV, pp. 351–364). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., & Le Pair, R.
(2012) Appreciation and interpretation of visual metaphors in advertising across three European countries. In F. MacArthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sánchez-García, & A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Eds.), Metaphor in use. Context, culture, and communication (pp. 177–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R., & Forceville, C.
(2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M.
(2012) How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Poppi, Fabio I. M., Marianna Bolognesi & Amitash Ojha
2020. Imago Dei: Metaphorical conceptualization of pictorial artworks within a participant-based framework. Semiotica 2020:236-237 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 april 2024. 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.