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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The question of what is truly literal is a subject of theoretical debate.
- 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.
Articles, determiners and verb suffixes are omitted in the program.
- 4.
For purposes of this discussion, the words “nominal” and “noun” are used interchangeably.
- 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.
- 7.
Martin (1990) has incorporated a version of such components as an extension of his system.
- 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.
The dependence of metaphor recognition on nonliteralness does not necessarily imply that literal meanings are always accessed before metaphoric ones by humans.
- 10.
Indurkhya cites parts of Stephen Spender’s poem, Seascapes, that image a swath of flowers as a “downhill rush [of water].”
- 11.
A garden path sentence is one for which understanding does not proceed in a straight line.
- 12.
Alternatively, components could be mapped to another primitive-component-based system, such as Schank’s (1975).
- 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
Agerri R, Barnden J, Lee M, Wallington A (2007) Invariant mappings and contexts in a computational approach to metaphor interpretation. In: IJCAI-MRCS
Barnden J, Glasbey S, Lee M, Wallington AM (2003) Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. In: EACL, pp 57–61
Barnden J, Glasbey S, Lee M, Wallington AM (2004) Varieties and directions of inter-domain influence in metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 19:1–30
Bouchard D (1995) The semantics of syntax: a minimalist approach to grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Carbonell J (1980) Metaphor: A key to extensible semantic analysis. In: ACL, pp 17–21
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
Carbonell J, Minton S (1983) Metaphor and common-sense reasoning, Rep. No. CMU-CS-83-110. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
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
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
Gruber J (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN
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
Indurkhya B (1992) Metaphor and cognition. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Jackendoff R (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Lakoff G, Nuñez R (2000) Where does mathematics come from? How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York, NY
Martin J (1990) A computational model of metaphor interpretation. Academic Press, New York
Narayanan S (1999) Moving right along: a computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In: AAAI
Ortony A (1979) Similarity in similes and metaphors. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
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
Russell SW (1986) Information and experience in metaphor: a perspective from computer analysis. Metaphor Symbolic Activity 1:227–270
Russell SW (1989) Verbal concepts as abstract structures: the most basic conceptual metaphor? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4:55–60
Russell SW (1992) Metaphoric coherence: distinguishing verbal metaphor from anomaly. Comput Intell 8:553–574
Russell SW (2009) Abstraction as a basis for the computational interpretation of creative cross-modal metaphor. Int J Speech Tech 11:125–134
Russell SW, Fischer I, Dormeyer R (2007) The cat and the brocaded bag. In: NLPCS, pp. 27–37
Salmans S, DeFrank T, Buresh B, Hubbard H (1975) A ford in high gear. Newsweek 20:13
Schank R (1975) Conceptual information processing. North Holland, Amsterdam
Suwa M, Motoda H (1991) Learning metaphorical relationships between concepts based on semantic representation using abstract primitives. In: IJCAI-CANL, pp. 123–131
Tagg C (2009) A corpus analysis of sms text messaging. Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham
Winston P (1978) Learning by creating and justifying transfer frames. Artif Intell 10:147–172
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)