Skip to main content

MAP: An Abstraction-Based Metaphor Analysis Program for Overcoming Cross-Modal Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1078 Accesses

Abstract

Much of the research on computational metaphor interpretation is based on metaphors that are prevalent in the language being processed. Moreover, the more detailed work in this area tends to focus primarily on specific domains of discourse. Such approaches, while of interest and value, are not adequate to handle novel metaphoric expressions that occur in a context unrestricted by domain, such as an ordinary conversation or a digression from a domain-specific context. This chapter describes MAP (Metaphor Analysis Program), a computer program that processes both novel and conventional cross-modal metaphor without restriction to a particular domain of discourse. MAP relies on the kind of semantic analysis that models what humans are hypothesized to do when they extend a literal meaning to a metaphoric one, especially when there is no clear indication of a discursive context. To do so, the model depends on an analysis of a metaphorically used word in its literal sense and the role of this sense in structuring the topic of the metaphor. Problems of multiple metaphoric interpretations and the uncertainty of constraints on metaphoric coherence are addressed by a number of vivid illustrations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The question of what is truly literal is a subject of theoretical debate.

  2. 2.

    The latter type, i.e., a decomposable metaphoric idiom, which can be quite original (“The cat is already peeking out of the bag”), has been treated in Russell et al. (2007).

  3. 3.

    Articles, determiners and verb suffixes are omitted in the program.

  4. 4.

    For purposes of this discussion, the words “nominal” and “noun” are used interchangeably.

  5. 5.

    Attributes, such as “red,” “asleep,” or “hopeful,” some of which have verb forms, are specific properties of the world and are not necessarily considered primitive.

  6. 6.

    Abstract case structures are simpler than traditional case structures. For example, Fillmore’s (1968) grammatical dative and locative cases, as well as Schank’s (1975) conceptual recipient and directive cases are combined in MAP’s LOCATION.

  7. 7.

    Martin (1990) has incorporated a version of such components as an extension of his system.

  8. 8.

    Acceptance thus distinguishes belief from mere reception, corresponding to Schank’s (1975) use of the psychological terms long term memory and conscious processor.

  9. 9.

    The dependence of metaphor recognition on nonliteralness does not necessarily imply that literal meanings are always accessed before metaphoric ones by humans.

  10. 10.

    Indurkhya cites parts of Stephen Spender’s poem, Seascapes, that image a swath of flowers as a “downhill rush [of water].”

  11. 11.

    A garden path sentence is one for which understanding does not proceed in a straight line.

  12. 12.

    Alternatively, components could be mapped to another primitive-component-based system, such as Schank’s (1975).

  13. 13.

    This method could theoretically be used to produce another metaphoric verb or (with dubious accuracy) a verb in a foreign language.

References

  • Aarts J, Calbert J (1979) Metaphor and non-metaphor: the semantics of adjective-noun combinations. Max Niemayer, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agerri R, Barnden J, Lee M, Wallington A (2007) Invariant mappings and contexts in a computational approach to metaphor interpretation. In: IJCAI-MRCS

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnden J, Glasbey S, Lee M, Wallington AM (2003) Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. In: EACL, pp 57–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnden J, Glasbey S, Lee M, Wallington AM (2004) Varieties and directions of inter-domain influence in metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 19:1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard D (1995) The semantics of syntax: a minimalist approach to grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell J (1980) Metaphor: A key to extensible semantic analysis. In: ACL, pp 17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell J (1982) Metaphor: an inescapable phenomenon in natural-language comprehension. In: Lehnert W, Ringle M (eds) Stragegies for natural language processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 415–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell J, Minton S (1983) Metaphor and common-sense reasoning, Rep. No. CMU-CS-83-110. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore C (1968) The case for case. In: Bach E, Harms R (eds) Universals in linguistic theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 1–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, France I (1988) The verb mutability effect: studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In: Small S, Cottrell G, Tanenhaus M (eds) Lexical ambiguity resolution. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber J (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs J (1992) Metaphor and abduction. In: Ortony A, Slack J, Stock O (eds) Communication from an artificial intelligence perspective: theoretical and applied issues, pp 35–58. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Indurkhya B (1992) Metaphor and cognition. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Nuñez R (2000) Where does mathematics come from? How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin J (1990) A computational model of metaphor interpretation. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan S (1999) Moving right along: a computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In: AAAI

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony A (1979) Similarity in similes and metaphors. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C.: The cognitive dynamics of synesthesia and metaphor. In: Honeck R, Hoffman R (eds) Cognition and figurative language. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 203–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell SW (1986) Information and experience in metaphor: a perspective from computer analysis. Metaphor Symbolic Activity 1:227–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell SW (1989) Verbal concepts as abstract structures: the most basic conceptual metaphor? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4:55–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell SW (1992) Metaphoric coherence: distinguishing verbal metaphor from anomaly. Comput Intell 8:553–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell SW (2009) Abstraction as a basis for the computational interpretation of creative cross-modal metaphor. Int J Speech Tech 11:125–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell SW, Fischer I, Dormeyer R (2007) The cat and the brocaded bag. In: NLPCS, pp. 27–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmans S, DeFrank T, Buresh B, Hubbard H (1975) A ford in high gear. Newsweek 20:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank R (1975) Conceptual information processing. North Holland, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Motoda H (1991) Learning metaphorical relationships between concepts based on semantic representation using abstract primitives. In: IJCAI-CANL, pp. 123–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagg C (2009) A corpus analysis of sms text messaging. Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston P (1978) Learning by creating and justifying transfer frames. Artif Intell 10:147–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Weber Russell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Russell, S.W. (2013). MAP: An Abstraction-Based Metaphor Analysis Program for Overcoming Cross-Modal Challenges. In: Neustein, A., Markowitz, J. (eds) Where Humans Meet Machines. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6934-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6934-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6933-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6934-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics