SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Adelman, J., & Brown, G. (2008). Modeling lexical decision: The form of frequency and diversity effects. Psychological Review, 115, 214229.
  • Adelman, J., Brown, G., & Quesada, J. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814823.
    Direct Link:
  • Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
  • Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617645.
  • Bishop, C. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.
  • Blasko, D., & Connine, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295308.
  • Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193216.
  • Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In R.Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 197211). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 668676.
  • Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 85105.
  • Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21, 247282.
  • Cover, T., & Thomas, J. (2006). Elements of information theory (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Furnas, G., Landauer, T., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391407.
  • Fass, D. (1991). Met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17, 4990.
  • Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285307.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
  • Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S.Vosniadou & A.Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure mapping. In R.Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109128). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 4556.
  • Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331355.
  • Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D.Gentner, K.Holyoak, & B.Kokinov (Eds.), Analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Glenberg, A., & Robertson, D. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379401.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 9296.
  • Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006a). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17, 935938.
    Direct Link:
  • Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006b). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21, 360378.
  • Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 318.
  • Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 15411558.
  • Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 5067.
  • Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267290.
  • Grady, J. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 15951614.
  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295355.
  • Hu, B., Kalfoglou, Y., Alani, H., Dupplaw, D., Lewis, P., & Shadbolt, N. (2006). Semantic metrics. In S.Staab & V.Svatek (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW 2006) (pp. 166181). Berlin: Springer.
  • Huettig, F., Quinlan, P. T., McDonald, S. A., & Altmann, G. T. (2006). Models of high-dimensional semantic space predict language-mediated eye movements in the visual world. Acta Psychologica, 121, 6580.
  • Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427466.
  • Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110124.
  • Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 1832.
  • Jones, M. N., Kintsch, W., & Mewhort, D. J. (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 534552.
  • Kawamoto, A. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474516.
  • Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576593.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257266.
  • Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173202.
  • Kintsch, W. (2007). Meaning in context. In T.Landauer, D.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 89105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kintsch, W. (2008a). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. In R.Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 129142). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W. (2008b). Symbol systems and perceptual representations. In M.de Vega, A.Glenberg, & A.Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 145163). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211240.
  • Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M.Shermis & J.Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Larkey, L. B., & Love, B. C. (2003). CAB: Connectionist analogy builder. Cognitive Science, 27, 781794.
  • Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical ecology, second english edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
  • Lemaire, B., & Bianco, M. (2003). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension: Experiment and simulation. In F.Detje, D.Dörner, & H.Schaub (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on cognitive modeling (ICCM2003) (pp. 153158). Germany: Universitäts-Verlag Bamberg.
  • Lin, D. (1998). Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computational linguistics and the 36th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 768774). Montreal, Canada: ACL.
  • Louwerse, M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T.Landauer, D.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 107120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Louwerse, M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 838844.
  • Louwerse, M., & Van Peer, W. (2009). How cognitive is cognitive poetics? The interaction between symbolic and embodied cognition. In G.Brone & J.Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 423444). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Lowe, W., & McDonald, S. (2000). The direct route: Mediated priming in semantic space. In L.Gleitman & A.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 806811). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Mangalath, P., Quesada, J., & Kintsch, W. (2004). Analogy-making as predication using relational information and LSA vectors. In K.Forbus, D.Gentner, & T.Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2004) (p. 1623). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. (1985). On memory for metaphor. Memory and Cognition, 13, 413424.
  • Marschark, M., Katz, A., & Paivio, A. (1983). Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(1), 1740.
  • Martin, J. (1992). Computer understanding of conventional metaphoric language. Cognitive Science, 16, 233270.
  • Martin, J. (1994). Metabank: A knowledge-base of metaphoric language conventions. Computational Intelligence, 10, 134149.
  • Mason, Z. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30, 2344.
  • McClelland, J. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 1138.
  • McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99130.
  • Murphy, G. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173204.
  • Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33, 161199.
  • Paivio, A., & Walsh, M. (1993). Psychological processes in metaphor comprehension and memory. In A.Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, second edition (pp. 307328). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pexman, P., Lupker, S., & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 542549.
  • Pexman, P., Holyk, G., & Monfils, M.-H. (2003). Number-of-features effects and semantic processing. Memory & Cognition, 31, 842855.
  • Ramscar, M., & Yarlett, D. (2003). Semantic grounding in models of analogy: An environmental approach. Cognitive Science, 27, 4171.
  • Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245266.
  • Rowe, M., & McNamara, D. (2008). Inhibition needs no negativity: Negative links in the construction-integration model. In B.Love, K.McRae, & V.Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2008) (pp. 17771782). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Schütze, H. (1998). Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics, 24, 97123.
  • Shahnaz, F., Berry, M., Pauca, V., & Plemmons, R. (2006). Document clustering using nonnegative matrix factorization. Information Processing and Management, 42, 373386.
  • Smith, E., Osherson, D., Rips, L., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485527.
  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition second edition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R.Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Thomas, M., & Mareschal, D. (2001). Metaphor as categorization: A connectionist implementation. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 527.
  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327352.
  • Utsumi, A. (2005). The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 151172.
  • Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretive diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 291312.
  • de Vega, M., Glenberg, A., & Graesser, A. (2008). Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wagenmakers, E., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192196.
  • Weber, S. (1991). A connectionist model of literal and figurative adjective noun combinations. In D.Fass, E.Hinkelman, & J.Martin (Eds.), Proceedings of the IJCAI workshop on computational approaches to non-literal language: Metaphor, metonymy, idioms, speech acts, implicature (pp. 151160). Sydney, Australia: IJCAI.
  • Widdows, D. (2004). Geometry and meaning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 529541.
  • Zwaan, R., & Yaxley, R. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954958.