Chapter 4
VisMet and the crowd
What social tagging reveals about visual metaphors
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.
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
References (34)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aroyo, L., & Welty, C. (2014). The three sides Crowd Truth. Human Computation, 1(1), 31–44. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34, 555–596. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolognesi, M. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolognesi, M. (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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cattuto, C., Barrat, A., Baldassarri, A., Schehr, G., & Loreto, V. (2009). Collective dynamics of social annotation. PNAS, 106(26), 10511–10515. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphors: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2, 75–95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphors in advertising. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kremer, G., & Baroni, M. (2011). A set of semantic norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 97–109. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N. (2012). The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 315. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M. (2012). How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.