Advertisement

A Comparison of Algorithms for Detection of “Figurativeness” in Metaphor, Irony and Puns

  • Elena MikhalkovaEmail author
  • Nadezhda Ganzherli
  • Vladislav Maraev
  • Anna Glazkova
  • Dmitriy Grigoriev
Conference paper
  • 366 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11832)

Abstract

Figurative speech is an umbrella term for metaphor, irony, sarcasm, puns and some other speech genres and figures of speech. In research and competitions like SemEval, each of them is usually processed separately with a task-specific model. However, being altogether called “figurative speech”, they should share some property: “figurativeness”. If such a property exists, figurative speech can be processed simultaneously by one and the same algorithm. The present research compares performance of several NLP methods that were designed to detect one type of figurative speech (either metaphor, or irony, or puns) on short texts containing a combination of these types. The study shows that, despite being task-specific, state-of-the-art algorithms are able to process different types of figurative speech fairly well, and some of them are good even at cross-detection when the training set contains one type and the test set another.

Keywords

Figurative speech Figurativeness Metaphor Irony Pun Cross-detection 

References

  1. 1.
    Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birke, J.: A clustering approach for the unsupervised recognition of nonliteral language. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computing Science-Simon Fraser University (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, T.: Figurative speech and figurative acts. J. Philos. 72(19), 669–684 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao, G., Choi, E., Choi, Y., Zettlemoyer, L.: Neural metaphor detection in context. arXiv preprint: arXiv:1808.09653 (2018)
  5. 5.
    Ghosh, A., et al.: SemEval-2015 task 11: sentiment analysis of figurative language in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pp. 470–478 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hempelmann, C.F., Attardo, S.: Resolutions and their incongruities: further thoughts on logical mechanisms. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 24(2), 125–149 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2011.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joshi, A., Tripathi, V., Patel, K., Bhattacharyya, P., Carman, M.: Are word embedding-based features useful for sarcasm detection? arXiv preprint: arXiv:1610.00883 (2016)
  8. 8.
    Leong, C.W.B., Klebanov, B.B., Shutova, E.: A report on the 2018 VUA metaphor detection shared task. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pp. 56–66 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mihalcea, R., Strapparava, C., Pulman, S.: Computational models for incongruity detection in humour. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2010. LNCS, vol. 6008, pp. 364–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12116-6_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mikhalkova, E., Karyakin, Y.: PunFields at SemEval-2017 task 7: employing Roget’s thesaurus in automatic pun recognition and interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pp. 426–431 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mikhalkova, E., Karyakin, Y., Voronov, A., Grigoriev, D., Leoznov, A.: PunFields at SemEval-2018 task 3: detecting irony by tools of humor analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 541–545 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller, T., Hempelmann, C., Gurevych, I.: SemEval-2017 task 7: detection and interpretation of English puns. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pp. 58–68 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohammad, S., Shutova, E., Turney, P.: Metaphor as a medium for emotion: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pp. 23–33 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreno, R.E.V.: Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech, vol. 156. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reyes, A., Rosso, P., Buscaldi, D.: From humor recognition to irony detection: the figurative language of social media. Data Knowl. Eng. 74, 1–12 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roberts, R.M., Kreuz, R.J.: Why do people use figurative language? Psychol. Sci. 5(3), 159–163 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simpson, E., Do Dinh, E.L., Miller, T., Gurevych, I.: Predicting humorousness and metaphor novelty with Gaussian process preference learning. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2019)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Hee, C.: Can machines sense irony?: Exploring automatic irony detection on social media. Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Hee, C., Lefever, E., Hoste, V.: SemEval-2018 task 3: irony detection in English tweets. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 39–50 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu, C., Wu, F., Wu, S., Liu, J., Yuan, Z., Huang, Y.: Thu\(\_\)ngn at SemEval-2018 task 3: tweet irony detection with densely connected LSTM and multi-task learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 51–56 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TyumenTyumenRussia
  2. 2.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.OOO ITSKTyumenRussia

Personalised recommendations