@conference {jamrozik2013relational, title = {Relational words have high metaphoric potential}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the First Workshop on Metaphor in NLP}, year = {2013}, pages = {21-26}, abstract = {What influences the likelihood that a word will be used metaphorically? We tested whether the likelihood of metaphorical use is related to the relationality of a word{\textquoteright}s meaning. Relational words name relations between entities. We predicted that relational words, such as verbs (e.g., speak) and relational nouns (e.g., marriage) would be more likely to be used metaphorically than words that name entities (e.g., item). In two experiments, we collected expert ratings of metaphoricity for uses of verbs, relational nouns, and entity nouns collected from a corpus search. As predicted, uses of relational words were rated as more metaphorical than uses of entity words. We discuss how these findings could inform NLP models of metaphor.}, url = {http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W13/W13-09.pdf$\#$page=31}, author = {Jamrozik, Anja and Eyal Sagi and Goldwater, Micah and Dedre Gentner}, editor = {E. Shutova and Beata Beigman-Klebanov and J. Testreault and Z. Kozareva} } @article {48, title = {Representational Form and Metaphorical Word Use}, year = {2012}, type = {Poster}, address = {Sapporo, Japan}, abstract = {How does semantic representation influence the likelihood that a word will be used metaphorically? We explore whether words whose meanings are defined by relations among entities (e.g., marriage, forget), are more likely to be used metaphorically than words whose meanings are defined by features of entities (e.g., bird). Verbs are generally more relational than nouns (Gentner, 1981). Relationality can also distinguish different kinds of nouns: specifically, relational nouns (e.g., marriage) vs. entity nouns (e.g., bird) (Gentner \& Kurtz, 2005; Goldwater, Markman, \& Stilwell, 2011; Markman \& Stilwell, 2001). Prior studies have shown that the meanings of relational words are more mutable across contexts than those of entity words (Gentner \& France, 1988; Asmuth \& Gentner, under review). Extending this work, we find that uses of relational words (both verbs and relational nouns) tend to be more metaphorical than uses of entity nouns in natural language corpora.}, author = {Jamrozik, Anja and Goldwater, Micah and Eyal Sagi and Dedre Gentner} } @article {bib_3, title = {What Difference Reveals About Similarity}, journal = {Cognitive Science}, volume = {36}, year = {2012}, pages = {1019 - 1050}, abstract = {Detecting that two images are different is faster for highly dissimilar images than for highly similar images. Paradoxically, we showed that the reverse occurs when people are asked to describe how two images differ {\textemdash} that is, to state a difference between two images. Following structure-mapping theory, we propose that this disassociation arises from the multistage nature of the comparison process. Detecting that two images are different can be done in the initial (local-matching) stage, but only for pairs with low overlap; thus, {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}different{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} responses are faster for low-similarity than for high-similarity pairs. In contrast, identifying a specific difference generally requires a full structural alignment of the two images, and this alignment process is faster for high-similarity pairs. We described four experiments that demonstrate this dissociation and show that the results can be simulated using the Structure-Mapping Engine. These results pose a significant challenge for nonstructural accounts of similarity comparison and suggest that structural alignment processes play a significant role in visual comparison.}, doi = {10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01250.x}, url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01250.x}, author = {Eyal Sagi and Dedre Gentner and Andrew Lovett} } @conference {22, title = {Modeling Perceptual Similarity as Analogy Resolves the Paradox of Difference Detection}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Analogy Conference}, year = {2009}, pages = {320-329}, address = {Sofia, Bulgaria}, abstract = {There is a paradoxical dissociation between recognizing that two stimuli are different and recognizing how they are different. We show that this dissociation can be captured by modeling perceptual similarity as a species of analogical processes. Using SME to model comparison, we show that the dissociation arises naturally from different stages in the analogical mapping process. Rather than relying on hand-coded input representations, our model uses an automatic, incremental encoding process to generate representations from the same stimuli as given to human participants.}, author = {Andrew Lovett and Dedre Gentner and Eyal Sagi and Kenneth Forbus}, editor = {Boicho Kokinov and Keith Holyoak and Dedre Gentner} } @article {19, title = {Using Analogical Mapping to Simulate Time-Course Phenomena in Perceptual Similarity}, journal = {Cognitive Systems Research}, volume = {10}, year = {2009}, pages = {216-228}, abstract = {We present a computational model of visual similarity. The model is based upon the idea that perceptual comparisons may utilize the same mapping processes as are used in analogy. We use the Structure Mapping Engine (SME), a model of Gentner{\textquoteright}s structure-mapping theory of analogy, to perform comparison on representations that are automatically generated from visual input. By encoding visual scenes incrementally and sampling the output of SME at multiple stages in its processing, we are able to model not only the output of similarity judgments, but the time course of the comparison process. We demonstrate the model{\textquoteright}s effectiveness by replicating the results from three psychological studies that bear on the time course of comparison.}, author = {Andrew Lovett and Kenneth Forbus and Dedre Gentner and Eyal Sagi} } @conference {31, title = {Analogy as a mechanism for comparison}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Analogies: Integrating Multiple Cognitive Abilities}, year = {2007}, pages = {27-30}, author = {Andrew Lovett and Eyal Sagi and Dedre Gentner}, editor = {Angela Schwering and Ulf Krumnack and Kai-Uwe K{\"u}hnberger and Helmar Gust} } @article {32, title = {Does {\textquotedblleft}Different{\textquotedblright} Imply a Difference? A Comparison of Two Tasks}, year = {2007}, type = {Talk}, address = {Evanston, IL}, author = {Eyal Sagi and Dedre Gentner} } @conference {14, title = {Does "Different" Imply a Difference? A Comparison of Two Tasks}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society}, year = {2006}, pages = {261-266}, address = {Vancouver, BC}, author = {Dedre Gentner and Eyal Sagi}, editor = {Ron Sun and Naomi Miyake} }