Advertisement

Metaphor, Semantic Preferences and Context-Sensitivity

Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 36)

Keywords

Mapping Link Target Domain Semantic Type Source Domain Conceptual Metaphor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballim, A., Wilks, Y. &Barnden, J. (1990). Belief ascription, metaphor, and intensional identification. In S.L. Tsohadzidis (Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall. pp. 91–131.Google Scholar
  2. Ballim, A., Wilks, Y. &Barnden, J.A. (1991). Belief ascription, metaphor, and intensional identification. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnden, J.A. (1998). Combining uncertain belief reasoning and uncertain metaphor-based reasoning. In Procs. Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.p 114–119. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Barnden, J.A. (2001a). Uncertainty and conflict handling in the ATT-Meta context-based system for metaphorical reasoning. In V. Akman, P. Bouquet, R. Thomason &R.A. Young (Eds), Procs. Third International Conference on Modeling and Using Context, pp. 15–29. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2116. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Barnden, J.A. (2001b). Application of the ATT-Meta metaphor-understanding approach to selected examples from Goatly. Technical Report CSRP–01–01, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  6. Barnden, J.A. (2001c). Application of the ATT-Meta metaphor-understanding approach to various examples in the ATT-Meta project databank. Technical Report CSRP–01–02, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  7. Barnden, J.A. (to appear). Metaphor and artificial intelligence: Why they matter to each other. To appear in R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barnden, J.A. (2006). Metaphor and metonymy: A practical deconstruction. Technical Report CSRP–06–1, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  9. Barnden, J.A., Glasbey, S.R., Lee, M.G. &Wallington, A.M. (2002). Reasoning in metaphor understanding: The ATT-Meta approach and system. In Procs. 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 1188–1193. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  10. Barnden, J.A., Glasbey, S.R., Lee, M.G. &Wallington, A.M. (2003). Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. In Conference Companion to the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2003), pp. 57–61. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  11. Barnden, J.A., Glasbey, S.R., Lee, M.G. &Wallington, A.M. (2004). Varieties and directions of inter-domain influence in metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 19( 1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnden, J.A. &Lee, M.G. (2001). Understanding open-ended usages of familiar conceptual metaphors: An approach and artificial intelligence system. Technical Report CSRP–01–05, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising ‘‘metaphor’’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron &G. Low (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, pp. 1–28. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carbonell, J.G. (1982). Metaphor: an inescapable phenomenon in natural-language comprehension. In W. Lehnert &M. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for Natural Language Processing, pp. 415–434. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Carston, R. &Wilson, D. (2005). Metaphor and relevance: The ‘‘emergent property’’ issue. Talk delivered at New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics: First UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K., October 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D. &Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41(1), 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fass, D. (1997). Processing Metaphor and Metonymy. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Fass, D. C. & Wilks, Y. (1983). Preference semantics, ill-formedness, and metaphor. J. Association for Computational Linguistics, 9(3&4), 178–187.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs, R.W., Jr. &Tendahl, M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language, 21(3), 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
  21. Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Grady, J.E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs, J.R. (1990). Literature and Cognition. Stanford University, CA: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, J. & Fodor, J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, pp. 202–251. New York and Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G. &Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. &Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, M.G. &Barnden, J.A. (2001a). Reasoning about mixed metaphors with an implemented AI system. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1&2), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, M.G. &Barnden, J.A. (2001b). Mental metaphors from the Master Metaphor List: Empirical examples and the application of the ATT-Meta system. Technical Report CSRP–01–03, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  30. Leezenberg, M. (1995). Contexts of metaphor. ILLC Dissertation Series, 1995–17, Institute for Language, Logic and Computation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Martin, J.H. (1990). A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mio, J.S. (1997). Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Idioms and Expressions in English. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Peleg, O, Giora, R. &Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sperber, D. &Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vervaeke, J. &Kennedy, J.M. (2004). Conceptual metaphor and abstract thought. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilks, Y. (1975). A preferential, pattern-seeking, semantics for natural language inference. Artificial Intelligence, 6, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilks, Y. (1978). Making preferences more active. Artificial Intelligence, 11, 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilks, Y., Barnden, J. &Wang, J. (1991). Your metaphor or mine: belief ascription and metaphor interpretation. In Procs. 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (Sydney, Australia, Aug. 1991). pp. 945–950 San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  42. Wilks, Y., Barnden, J. & Wang, J. (1996). Your metaphor or mine: belief ascription and metaphor interpretation. In B.H. Partee &P. Sgall (Eds.), Discourse and Meaning: Papers in Honor of Eva Hajicov’, gives upturned circumflex, 141–161. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Zhang, L., Barnden, J.A., Hendley, R.J. &Wallington, A.M. (2006). Exploitation in affect detection in improvisational e-drama. Patrick Olivier. In Procs. 6th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4133, 68–79. Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations