Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 9, Issue 4–5, pp 273–289 | Cite as

Language, vision and metaphor

  • Yorick Wilks
Article

Abstract

The integration of language and vision capabilities in computers can be seen purely as a multi-media task without any theoretical assumptions being required. However, it is worth exploring whether the modalities have anything serious in common, in particular in the light of claim that most non-technical language use is metaphorical. What consequences would that have for the underlying relationship of language and vision: is it possible that vision is largely metaphorical?

The conclusion (see also, Wilks 1978b and Wilks and Okada (in press) is that visual processing can embody structural ambiguity (whether compositional or not), but not anything analogous to metaphor. Metaphor is essentially connected with the extension of sense and only symbols can have senses. But if it makes no sense to say a figure can be metaphorical (unless it embodies symbolic elements) that must also mean, alas, that it makes no sense to say it is literally anything either. Only a symbol can be literally something. A hat is a hat is a hat, but never, ever literally so.

Key words

natural language processing vision metaphor case 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. (1971).The Grammar of Case. Cambridge U.P.: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Arens, Y. (1981). Using Language and Context in the Analysis of Text. In Proceedings ofInternat. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Tbilisi. 1121–1129.Google Scholar
  3. Colby, K. (1973). The Simulation of Belief Systems. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.)Computer Models of Thought and Language, 251–286. W. H. Freeman: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. Church, K. & Hanks, P. (1989). Word Association Norms, Mutual Information and Lexicography. In Proceedings ofThe 27th Meeting of ACM, 45–51. Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  5. Clowes, M. (1972). Scene Analysis and Picture Grammars. In Nake, K. & Rosenfeld, A. (eds.)Graphic Languages, 107–127. N. Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Dailey, D. P. (1986). The Extraction of a Minimum Set of Semantic Primitives from a Monolingual Dictionary is NP-Complete.Computational Linguistics 12(4): 306–307.Google Scholar
  7. Fass, D. (1986). Collative Semantics. In Proceedings ofThe Internat. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, 341–343.Google Scholar
  8. Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes and Frames Semantics. In Zampolli, A. (ed.)Linguistic Structures Processing. N. Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Gazdar, G. (1990). An Introduction to DATR. In Evans, R. & Gazdar, G. (eds.)The DATR Papers. Cognitive Science Research Papers CSRP 139, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  10. Gregory, R. (1970). The Grammar of Vision.The Listener, BBC: London.Google Scholar
  11. Guo, C. M. (1994).Machine Tractable Dictionaries, Ablex: Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Guthrie, L., Slator, B., Wilks, Y. & Bruce, R. (1990). Is There Content in Empty Heads? In Proceedings ofThe Internat. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, 236–240. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Hanks, P. (1986). Typicality and Meaning Potentials. In Proceedings ofThe European Conf. on Lexicography, 213–223. Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. Hornby, A. (1963).The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of English. O.U.P.: Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Jackendoff, R. (1975). A System of Semantic Primitives. In Schank & Nash-Webber (eds.)Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 112–117. BBN: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson-Laird, P. (1984). Semantic Primitives or Meaning Postulates: Mental Models of Propositional Representations. In Bara, B. & Guida, G. (eds.),Computational Models of Natural Language Processing, 227–246. North-Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Katz, J. & Fodor, J. (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory.Language; pp. 334–349.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, J. (1972).Semantic Theory. Harper & Row: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Kay, M. (1989). The Concrete Lexicon and the Abstract Dictionary. In Proceeding ofThe Fifth Annual Conference of UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 54–64. Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, J. (1990).A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  21. Michotte, A. (1954). La perception de la causalite.Studia Psychologica: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  22. Minsky, M. (1975). Frame Systems. In Schank & Nash-Webber (eds.)Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 89–94. BBN: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Newell, A. (1973). Artificial Intelligence and the Concept of Mind. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.)Computer Models of Thought and Language, 1–60. Freeman: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Procter, P. (1978).Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Longman: London.Google Scholar
  25. Pustejovsky, J. & Bergler, S. (1987). The Acquisition of Conceptual Structure for the Lexicon. In Proceedings ofThe Amer. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 566–576.Google Scholar
  26. Rieger, C. (1976). Computers and Thought Lecture at IJCAI4.Artificial Intelligence, 88–98.Google Scholar
  27. Ryle, G. (1949).The Concept of Mind. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
  28. Schank, R. (1973). Identification of Conceptualizations underlying Natural Language. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.)Computer Models of Thought and Language, 187–248. Freeman: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  29. Searle, J. (1979). Literal Meaning. InExpression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, H. (1969). The Architecture of Complexity. InThe Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1987)Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language. Collins: London.Google Scholar
  33. Tooke, H. (1769).The Diversions of Purley. London.Google Scholar
  34. Whorf, B. (1956).Language, Thought and Reality. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Wilensky, R. (1987). Some Complexities of Goal Analysis. In Proceedings ofThe Third Conf. on Theoret. Issues in Language Processing, 97–99.Google Scholar
  36. Wilks, Y. (1972).Grammar, Meaning and The Machine Analysis of Language. Routledge: London & Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Wilks, Y. (1975). Preference Semantics. In Keenan, E. (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 78–88. Cambridge U.P.: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Wilks, Y. (1975a). An Intelligent Analyzer and Understander of Natural Language.Comm. A.C.M., 112–119.Google Scholar
  39. Wilks, Y. (1975b). A Preferential, Pattern-Matching Semantics for Natural Language.Artificial Intelligence, 76–88.Google Scholar
  40. Wilks, Y. (1977). Good and Bad Arguments for Semantic Primitives.Communication and Cognition, 187–197.Google Scholar
  41. Wilks, Y. (1978). Making Preferences More Active.Artificial Intelligence 11: 243–263.Google Scholar
  42. Wilks, Y. (1978). Semantic Primitives in Language and Vision. In Proceedings ofThe Second Conf. on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Champaign-Urbana, IL, 67–72.Google Scholar
  43. Wilks, Y., Fass, D., Guo, C-M., McDonald, J., Plate, T. & Slator, B. (1990). Providing Machine Tractable Dictionary Tools.Journal of Machine Translation 5(2): 99–151.Google Scholar
  44. Wilks, Y. & Fass, D. (1992). The Preference Semantics Family.Comput. Math. Applic. 23: 99–117.Google Scholar
  45. Wilks, Y., Slator, B. & Guthrie, L. (in press).Electric Words. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Wilks, Y. & Okada, N. (eds.) (in press)Computer Language and Vision Across the Pacific. Ablex: Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  47. Wittengstein, L. (1953).Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yorick Wilks
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Language, Speech and Hearing (ILASH) and Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldEngland

Personalised recommendations