English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

One major question in the study of metaphors historically is: Are different mechanisms involved in the comprehension of figurative statements versus literal statements? Many studies have addressed this question from a variety of perspectives, with mixed results. Following Harati, Westbury, and Kiaee ( Behavior Research Methods , 53, 2214-2225, 2021), we use a computational (word embedding) model of semantics to approach the question in a way that allows for the quantification of the semantic relationship between the two keywords in literal and metaphorical “x is a y” statements. We first demonstrate that almost all literal statements (95.2% of 582 statements we considered) have very high relatedness values. We then show that literality decisions are slower for literal statements with low relatedness and metaphorical statements with high relatedness. We find a similar but smaller effect attributable to the cosine of the vectors representing the two keywords. The fact that the same measurable characteristics allow us to predict which metaphors or literal sentences will have the slowest literality decision times suggests that the same processes underlie the comprehension of both literal and metaphorical statements.

Is theology more of a field than a father is a king? Modelling semantic relatedness in processing literal and metaphorical statements