Floating or Suggesting Ideas? A Large-Scale Contrastive Analysis of Metaphorical and Literal Verb-Object Constructions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08275v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:08:57 GMT
• Title: Floating or Suggesting Ideas? A Large-Scale Contrastive Analysis of Metaphorical and Literal Verb-Object Constructions
• Abstract summary: We analyze 297 English verb-object pairs (e.g., float idea vs. suggest idea) in 2M corpus sentences.<n>Using five NLP tools, we extract 2,293 cognitive and linguistic features capturing affective, lexical, syntactic, and discourse-level properties.<n>Cross-pair results show literal contexts have higher lexical frequency, cohesion, and structural regularity, while metaphorical contexts show greater affective load, imageability, lexical diversity, and constructional specificity.
• Score: 53.690096725532726
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Metaphor pervades everyday language, allowing speakers to express abstract concepts via concrete domains. While prior work has studied metaphors cognitively and psycholinguistically, large-scale comparisons with literal language remain limited, especially for near-synonymous expressions. We analyze 297 English verb-object pairs (e.g., float idea vs. suggest idea) in ~2M corpus sentences, examining their contextual usage. Using five NLP tools, we extract 2,293 cognitive and linguistic features capturing affective, lexical, syntactic, and discourse-level properties. We address: (i) whether features differ between metaphorical and literal contexts (cross-pair analysis), and (ii) whether individual VO pairs diverge internally (within-pair analysis). Cross-pair results show literal contexts have higher lexical frequency, cohesion, and structural regularity, while metaphorical contexts show greater affective load, imageability, lexical diversity, and constructional specificity. Within-pair analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity, with most pairs showing non-uniform effects. These results suggest no single, consistent distributional pattern that distinguishes metaphorical from literal usage. Instead, differences are largely construction-specific. Overall, large-scale data combined with diverse features provides a fine-grained understanding of metaphor-literal contrasts in VO usage.

Related papers

• Learning the Cue or Learning the Word? Analyzing Generalization in Metaphor Detection for Verbs [54.86138668387175]
  We analyze metaphor detection through RoBERTa, the shared backbone of many state-of-the-art systems, focusing on English verbs.<n>We introduce a controlled lexical hold-out setup where all instances of selected target lemmas are strictly excluded from fine-tuning, and compare predictions on these Held-out lemmas against Exposed lemmas.<n>While the model performs best on Exposed lemmas, it maintains robust performance on Held-out lemmas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T10:48:09Z)
• IDIOLEX: Unified and Continuous Representations for Idiolectal and Stylistic Variation [88.98544786373212]
  Existing sentence representations primarily encode what a sentence says, rather than how it is expressed.<n>We develop sentence representations that capture style and dialect, decoupled from semantic content.<n>We introduce IDIOLEX, a framework for training models that combines supervision from a sentence's provenance with linguistic features of a sentence's content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T14:17:24Z)
• Verifying Claims About Metaphors with Large-Scale Automatic Metaphor Identification [14.143299702954023]
  This study entails a large-scale, corpus-based analysis of certain existing claims about verb metaphors, by applying metaphor detection to sentences extracted from Common Crawl. The verification results indicate that the direct objects of verbs used as metaphors tend to have lower degrees of concreteness, imageability, and familiarity, and that metaphors are more likely to be used in emotional and subjective sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T10:17:45Z)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [52.992875653864076]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account.<n>We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed.<n>Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• How Do In-Context Examples Affect Compositional Generalization? [86.57079616209474]
  In this paper, we present CoFe, a test suite to investigate in-context compositional generalization. We find that the compositional generalization performance can be easily affected by the selection of in-context examples. Our systematic experiments indicate that in-context examples should be structurally similar to the test case, diverse from each other, and individually simple.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T16:32:18Z)
• LMs stand their Ground: Investigating the Effect of Embodiment in Figurative Language Interpretation by Language Models [0.0]
  Figurative language is a challenge for language models since its interpretation deviates from their conventional order and meaning. Yet, humans can easily understand and interpret metaphors as they can be derived from embodied metaphors. This study shows how larger language models perform better at interpreting metaphoric sentences when the action of the metaphorical sentence is more embodied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T11:44:12Z)
• What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations [13.622570558506265]
  Given a specific discourse, which discourse properties trigger the use of metaphorical language, rather than using literal alternatives? Many NLP approaches to metaphorical language rely on cognitive and (psycho-)linguistic insights and have successfully defined models of discourse coherence, abstractness and affect. In this work, we build five simple models relying on established cognitive and linguistic properties to predict the use of a metaphorical vs. synonymous literal expression in context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:08:53Z)
• On the Impact of Temporal Representations on Metaphor Detection [1.6959319157216468]
  State-of-the-art approaches for metaphor detection compare their literal - or core - meaning and their contextual meaning using sequential metaphor classifiers based on neural networks. This study examines the metaphor detection task with a detailed exploratory analysis where different temporal and static word embeddings are used to account for different representations of literal meanings. Results suggest that different word embeddings do impact on the metaphor detection task and some temporal word embeddings slightly outperform static methods on some performance measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-05T08:43:21Z)
• It's not Rocket Science : Interpreting Figurative Language in Narratives [48.84507467131819]
  We study the interpretation of two non-compositional figurative languages (idioms and similes) Our experiments show that models based solely on pre-trained language models perform substantially worse than humans on these tasks. We additionally propose knowledge-enhanced models, adopting human strategies for interpreting figurative language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-31T21:46:35Z)
• Exploring the Representation of Word Meanings in Context: A Case Study on Homonymy and Synonymy [0.0]
  We assess the ability of both static and contextualized models to adequately represent different lexical-semantic relations. Experiments are performed in Galician, Portuguese, English, and Spanish.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T10:54:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.