Generating Apt Metaphor Ideas for Pictorial Advertising
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Ping Xiao and Josep Blat: Generating Apt Metaphor Ideas for Pictorial Advertising. In: Computational Creativity 2013 ICCC 2013, 8-15.
DOI
Abstract
Pictorial metaphor is a popular way of expression in creative advertising. It attributes certain desirable quali- ty to the advertised product. We adopt a general two- stage computational approach in order to generate apt metaphor ideas for pictorial advertisements. The first stage looks for concepts which have high imageability and the selling premise as one of their prototypical properties. The second stage evaluates the aptness of the candidate vehicles (found in the first stage) in re- gard to four metrics, including affect polarity, salience, secondary attributes and similarity with tenor. These four metrics are conceived based on the general charac- teristics of metaphor and its specialty in advertisements. We developed a knowledge extraction method for the first stage and utilized an affect lexicon and two seman- tic relatedness measures to implement the aptness me- trics of the second stage. The capacity of our computer program is demonstrated in a task of reproducing the pictorial metaphor ideas used in three real advertise- ments. All the three original metaphors were replicated, as well as a few other vehicles recommended, which, we consider, would make effective advertisements as well.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Ping Xiao and Josep Blat},
title = {Generating Apt Metaphor Ideas for Pictorial Advertising},
editor = {Simon Colton, Dan Ventura, Nada Lavrač, Michael Cook},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2013},
year = {2013},
month = {Jun},
location = {Sydney, New South Wales, Australia},
pages = {8-15},
url = {http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2013/download/iccc2013-xiao-blat.pdf, http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Generating_Apt_Metaphor_Ideas_for_Pictorial_Advertising },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Abe, K., Sakamoto, K., and Nakagawa, M. 2006. A computation- al model of metaphor generation process. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 937–942.
Amos, C., Holmes, G., and Strutton, D. 2008. Exploring the rela- tionship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effec- tiveness: A quantitative synthesis of effect size. International Journal of Advertising 27(2):209–234.
Andersson, S., Hedelin, A., Nilsson, A., and Welander, C. 2004. Violent advertising in fashion marketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8:96-112.
Aristotle. 1924. The Art of Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Ro- berts. The Internet Classics Archive, accessed October 1, 2012. http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/rhetoric.html.
Attardo, S., and Raskin, V. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4(3-4):293-347.
Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., and Sebastiani, F. 2010. SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), Valletta, MT.
Binsted, K., Bergen, B., Coulson, S., Nijholt, A., Stock, O., Strapparava, C., Ritchie, G., Manurung, R., Pain, H., Waller, A., and O’Mara, D. 2006. Computational humor. IEEE Intelligent Systems March-April.
Black, M. 1962. Models and metaphors. NY: Cornell University Press.
Budanitsky, A., and Hirst, G. 2006. Evaluating WordNet-based measures of semantic distance. Journal of Computational Lin- guistics 32(1):13–47.
Chiappe, D., and Kennedy, J. 1999. Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 6:668–676.
De Pelsmacker, P., and Van Den Bergh, J. 1996. The communi- cation effects of provocation in print advertising. International Journal of Advertising 15(3):203–22.
Fellbaum, C. D., ed. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Da- tabase. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
Foss, S. K. 2005. Theory of Visual Rhetoric. In Smith, K., Mo- riarty, S., Barbatsis, G., and Kenney, K., eds., Hand- book of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 141-152.
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical frame- work for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155-170.
Gentner, D., and Clements, C. 1988. Evidence for relational se- lectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In Bower, G., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gentner, D., and Markman, A. B. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52:45-56.
Glucksberg, S., and Keysar, B. 1990. Understanding Metaphori- cal comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97:3- 18.
Glucksberg, S., and Keysar, B. 1993. How metaphors work. In Ortony, A. ed., Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 401- 424.
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., and Solomon, S. 1999. Creativity templates: towards identifying the fundamental schemes of quali- ty advertisements. Marketing Science 18(3):333-351.
Kameya, Y., and Sato, T. 2005. Computation of probabilistic relationship between concepts and their attributes using a statis- tical analysis of Japanese corpora. In Proceedings of Symposium on Large-Scale Knowledge Resources, 65-68.
Kanerva, P., Kristofersson, J., and Holst, A. 2000. Random index- ing of text samples for latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci'00), Erlbaum.
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., and Piper, J. 1973. An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In Aitken, A. J., Bailey, R. W., and Hamilton-Smith, N. eds., The Computer and Literary Studies, Edinburgh: University Press. 153-165.
Kohli, C., and Labahn, D. W. 1997. Creating effective brand names: A study of the naming process. Journal of Advertising Research 37(1):67–75.
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Re- view 104:211-240.
Liu, H., and Singh, P. 2004. ConceptNet: A practical common- sense reasoning toolkit. BT Technology Journal 22(4):211-26.
Maes, A., and Schilperoord, J. 2008. Classifying visual rhetoric: Conceptual and structural heuristics. In McQuarrie, E. F., and Phillips, B. J., eds., Go Figure: New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric. Armonk, New York: Sharpe. 227-257.
Marschark, M., Katz, A. N., and Paivio, A. Dimensions of meta- phor, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12(1):17.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., and Schreiber, T. A. 1998. The university of south Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. University of South Florida Website, accessed January 13, 2012. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.
Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review 86:161-180.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., and Madigan, S. 1968. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values of 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76:1-25.
Phillips, B. J. 1997. Thinking into it: Consumer interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising 26(2):77–87.
Phillips, B. J., and McQuarrie, E. F. 2004. Beyond visual meta- phor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory 4(1/2):111-134.
Phillips, B. J., and McQuarrie, E. F. 2009. Impact of advertising metaphor on consumer beliefs: delineating the contribution of comparison versus deviation factors. Journal of Advertising 38(1):49-61.
Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Ox- ford University Press.
Ritchie, G. D. 2001. Current directions in computational humour. Artificial Intelligence Review 16(2):119-135.
Roget, P. M. 1852. Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman Group Ltd.
Terai, A., and Nakagawa, M. 2009. A neural network model of metaphor generation with dynamic interaction. In Alippi, C., Polycarpou, M., Panayiotou, C., Ellinas, G., eds., ICANN 2009, Part I. LNCS, 5768, Springer, Heidelberg . 779–788.
Terai, A., and Nakagawa, M. 2010. A computational system of metaphor generation with evaluation mechanism. In Diamantaras, K., Duch, W., Iliadis, L. S., eds., ICANN 2010, Part II. LNCS, 6353, Springer, Heidelberg. 142–147.
Toglia, M. P., and Battig, W. F. 1978. Handbook of Semantic Word Norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tourangeau, R., and Sternberg, R. J. 1981. Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology 13: 27-55.
Tourangeau, R., and Sternberg, R. J. 1982. Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition 11: 203-244.
Turney, P. D. 2001. Mining the Web for synonyms: PMI-IR ver- sus LSA on TOEFL. In Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Machine Learning, 491-502. Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
Veale, T., and Keane, M. T. 1992. Conceptual Scaffolding: A spatially-founded meaning representation for metaphor compre- hension. Computational Intelligence 8(3):494-519.
Veale, T., O Donoghue, D., and Keane, M. T. 1995. Epistemolog- ical issues in metaphor comprehension: A comparative analysis of three models of metaphor interpretation. In Proceedings of ICLC’95, the Fourth Conference of The International Cognitive Linguistics Association, Albuquerque NM.
Veale, T., and Hao, Y. 2007. Comprehending and generating apt metaphors: A Web-driven, case-based approach to figurative language. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, Canada.
Vézina, R., and Paul, O. 1997. Provocation in advertising: A con- ceptualization and an empirical assessment. International Journal of Research in Marketing 14(2):177-192.
Waltinger, U., Cramer, I., and Wandmacher, T. 2009. From so- cial networks to distributional properties: A comparative study on computing semantic relatedness. In Proceedings of the Thirty- First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2009, 3016- 3021. Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, Neth- erlands.
Xiao, P., and Blat, J. 2012. Image the imageless: Search for pic- torial representations of abstract concepts. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Design Principles and Prac- tices, Chiba, Japan.
Links
Full Text
http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2013/download/iccc2013-xiao-blat.pdf
