Cover not available

In:Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 421–448

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Metaphor generation through context sensitive distributional semantics

 | ction.ai
 | Cognitive Science Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, Ljubljana | Department of Knowledge Technologies, InstitutJožef Stefan, Ljubljana
 | Cognitive Science Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, Ljubljana | Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.15mcg
Abstract
In this paper, we outline a preliminary methodology for generating metaphor based on contextual projections of representations built up through a statistical analysis of a large-scale linguistic corpus. These projections involve defining subspaces of co-occurrence statistics in which we show that metaphors can be modelled as mappings between congruent regions of semantic representations. We offer this methodology as an empirical implementation pointing towards a resolution of theoretical stances, at times incompatible, construing metaphor as on the one hand an artefact of underlying cognitive processes and on the other hand a product of the environmentally situated generation of ephemeral conceptual schemes.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Language in minds, minds in the world
  • 3.Computational approaches to metaphor
  • 4. Semantics in perspective
  • 5.Projecting metaphorical mappings
  • 6.Finding coherent subspaces
  • 7.The way forward
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Agres, K. R., McGregor, S., Rataj, K., Purver, M., & Wiggins, G. A. (2016). Modeling metaphor perception with distributional semantics vector space models. In Workshop on Computational Creativity, Concept Invention, and General Intelligence .
Barnden, J. A., & Lee, M. G. (1999). An implemented context system that combines belief reasoning, metaphor-based reasoning and uncertainty handling. In Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference (pp. 28– 41).
Baroni, M., & Zamparelli, R. (2010). Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: Representing adjective-noun constructions in semantic space. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1183– 1193).
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer, & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. Collins, S. Gathercole, & M. Conway (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29–101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellman, R. E. (2003). Dynamic programming. Dover Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word-meaning – more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 83–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 297–323.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Metaphor and the literal/nonliteral distinction. In K. Allan, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 370–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, S. (2015). Vector space models of lexical meaning. In S. Lappin, & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 493–522). Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M., & Clark, S. (2011). Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributed model of meaning. Linguistic Analysis, 36(1–4), 345–384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. In Inquiries into truth and interpretation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 4171–4186).
Ethayarajh, K. (2019). How contextual are contextualized word representations? comparing the geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (pp. 55–65).
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. B. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual space: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gargett, A., & J. Barnden (2013). Gen-meta: Generating metaphors using a combination of AI reasoning and corpus-based modeling of formulaic expressions. In Proceedings of TAAI 2013 .
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.,Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr., R. W., & Tendahl, M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language, 21(3), 379–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Miffline.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grefenstette, E., Sadrzadeh, M., Clark, S., Coecke, B., & Pulman, S. (2014). Concrete sentence spaces for compositional distributional models of meaning (pp. 71–86). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, E. D., Shutova, E., Marghetis, T., & Bergen, B. K. (2016). Literal and metaphorical senses in compositional distributional semantic models. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics .
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10(23), 146–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kartsaklis, D., & Sadrzadeh, M. (2013). Prior disambiguation of word tensors for constructing sentence vectors. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1590–1601).
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177–202). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Z. J. (2004). Cormet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, S., Agres, K., Purver, M., & Wiggins, G. (2015). From distributional semantics to conceptual spaces: A novel computational method for concept creation. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, S., Jezek, E., Purver, M., & Wiggins, G. (2017). A geometric method for detecting semantic coercion. In Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Computational Semantics .
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In Proceedings of ICLR Workshop .
Miyazawa, A., & Miyao, Y. (2017). Evaluation metrics for automatically generated metaphorical expressions. In 12th International Workshop on Computational Semantics .
Pantel, P. (2005). Inducing ontological co-occurrence vectors. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA (pp. 125–132). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2227–2237).
Reimer, M. (2001). Davidson on metaphor. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 142–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Grice on irony and metaphor: Discredited by the experimental evidence? International Review of Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 137–150).
Schütze, H. (1992). Dimensions of meaning. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing (pp. 787–796).
Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shutova, E. (2015). Design and evaluation of metaphor processing systems. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 579–623. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shutova, E., Teufel, S., & Korhonen, A. (2013). Statistical metaphor processing. Computational Linguistics, 39(2), 301–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E. K., & Hong, J. (2016). Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory: A structured repository for metaphor analysis. MetaNet, Special Issue of Constructions and Frames, 8(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphor and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsvetkov, Y., Boytsov, L., Gershman, A., Nyberg, E., & Dyer, C. (2014). Metaphor detection with cross-lingual model transfer. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 248–258). The Association for Computer Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Genabith, J. (1999). Metaphors and type theory. In Proceedings of the AISB’99 Symposium on Metaphor, Artificial Intelligence, and Cognition (pp. 108–112).
Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2007). Comprehending and generating apt metaphors: A web-driven, case-based approach to figurative language. AAAI , 1471–1476.
Wilks, Y. (1978). Making preferences more active. Artificial Intelligence, 11(3), 197–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue