Advertisement

Metonymy and Metaphor: Boundary Cases and the Role of a Generative Lexicon

  • Sabine BerglerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 46)

Abstract

Principled treatments of metonymy based on the structure of the lexicon have been proposed. This paper addresses the question whether these structure-based approaches to metonymy resolution can be combined with wider treatments of non-literal language comprehension, with particular emphasis on the co-occurrence and interaction between metonymy and metaphor. We give a concrete example from the Wall Street Journal for this phenomenon and discuss different approaches to illustrate the tradeoffs and shortcomings of models that are built on the notion of either metaphor or metonymy in isolation.

Keywords

Lexical Entry Word Sense Word Sense Disambiguation Intended Interpretation Lexical Semantic 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for Dan Fass’ comments on an earlier draft and Jona Schuman’s suggestion of the direct opposition of survive and spoil. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreevskaia, A., & Bergler, S. (2006). Mining WordNet for Fuzzy sentiment: Sentiment tag extraction from WordNet Glosses. In Proceedings of the 11th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2006, Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2001). Metaphor in discourse. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 262–289). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Haim, R., Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Ferro, L., Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., & Szpektor, I. (2006). The second PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the second PASCAL challenges workshop on recognising textual entailment, Venice, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bergler, S. (1991). The semantics of collocational patterns for reporting verbs. In Proceedings of the fifth European conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 216–221), Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Bergler, S. (1993). Semantic dimensions in the field of reporting verbs. In Making sense of words. Proceedings of the ninth annual conference of the UW Center for the New OED and Text Research (pp. 44–56), Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Bergler, S. (1995). Generative lexicon principles for machine translation: A case for meta-lexical structure. Journal of Machine Translation, 9(3).Google Scholar
  9. Bouillon, P., & Busa, F. (2001). Qualia and the structure of verb meaning. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 149–167). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part of speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21(4), 543–565.Google Scholar
  11. Briscoe, E., Carroll, J., & Watson, R. (2006). The second release of the RASP system. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 interactive presentation sessions, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Copestake, A. (1992). The representation of group denoting nouns in a lexical knowledge base. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Proceedings of the second seminar on computational lexical semantics, IRIT, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  13. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1992). Lexical operations in a unification-based framework. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation (pp.101–119). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cruse, A. (1995). Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In St. P. Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp. 33–49). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, H. (2002). GATE, a General Architecture for Text Engineering. Computers and the Humanities, 36, 223–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edmonds, P., & Kilgarriff, A. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on evaluating word sense disambiguation systems. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 8(4).Google Scholar
  17. Fass, D. (1991). met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 49–90.Google Scholar
  18. Fass, D. (1998). Processing metonymy and metaphor. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. Fass, D., Martin, J., & Hinkelman, E. (Eds.). (1992). Computational Intelligence, 8(3). Special Issue on Non-Literal Language.Google Scholar
  20. Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expres-sions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbs, R. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godard, D., & Jayez, J. (1993). Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the European chapter of the ACL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Grinberg, D., Lafferty, J., & Sleator, D. (1995). A robust parsing algorithm for link grammars. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on Parsing Technologies, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  25. Hepple, M. (2000). Independence and commitment: Assumptions for rapid training and execution of rule-based part-of-speech taggers. In Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2000), Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  26. Hindle, D. (1990). Noun classification from predicate-argument structures. In Proceedings of the 28th meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lapata, M., & Lascarides, A. (2003). A probabilistic account of logical metonymy. Computational Linguistics, 29(2), 261–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lytinen, S. L., Burridge, R. R., & Kirtner, J. D. (1992). The role of literal meaning in the comprehension of non-literal constructions. Computational Intelligence, 8(3). Special Issue on Non-Literal Language.Google Scholar
  30. Paradis, C. (2003) Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. The Department of English Working Papers, 3, Lund University.Google Scholar
  31. Porter, N. (1913). Webster’s revised unabridged dictionary. Springfield: G & C. Merriam Co.Google Scholar
  32. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4).Google Scholar
  33. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon: A theory of computational lexical semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pustejovsky, J. (2001). Type construction and the logic of concepts. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 91–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pustejovsky, J., & Boguraev, B. (1993). Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1–2), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P. (1995). Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pustejovsky, J., Bergler, S., & Anick, P. (1993). Lexical semantic techniques for corpus analysis. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 331–358.Google Scholar
  38. Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1995). Idiom. Language, 70.Google Scholar
  39. Smadja, F. A., & McKeown, K. R. (1990) Automatically extracting and representing collocations for language generation. In Proceedings of the 28th meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  40. Utsumi, A. (1999) Explaining the time-course of literal and nonliteral comprehension. Poster presented at the second International Conference on Cognitive Science and the 16th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society Joint Conference (ICCS/JCSS99), Tokyo, Japan. Article in Online Proceedings at http://logos.mind.sccs.chukyo-u.ac.jp/jcss/ICCS/99/olp/p2-19/p2-19.htm.
  41. Verhagen, M., Mani, I., Sauri, R., Littman, J., Knippen, R., Jang, S. B., Rumshisky, A., Phillips, J., Pustejovsky, J. (2005) Automating temporal annotation with TARSQI. Short paper. In Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the ACL. Ann Arbor, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Software Engineering DepartmentConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations