Cover not available

In:Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 123–146

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

Chapter 5
MetaNet.HR

Croatian metaphor repository

 | Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics
 | University of Zagreb
 | Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture
 | University of Osijek
 | University of Rijeka
 | Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics
 | Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics
 | Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.06des
This paper describes the theoretical background, methodology, tasks, results, and challenges of the MetaNet.HR (Croatian Metaphor Repository) project. It combines a theory-driven introspective top-down approach that analyzes the system of conceptual metaphors in the Croatian language (following the methodology of the MetaNet project) with a bottom-up corpus-based approach that analyzes how metaphors are used in language corpora. The project involves linguistic, computational, and psychological tasks. The main result of the project is a figurative language database – MetaNet.HR (http://​ihjj​.hr​/metafore/). This database lists conceptual metaphors and metonymies decomposed into source-target relations among cognitive primitives, image schemas, and semantic frames, which are further decomposed into semantic roles. The database includes annotated metaphor examples and links to experiments, if applicable.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Neural theory of language and thought
    • 2.2Neural theory of metaphor
  • 3.Main tasks of the MetaNet.HR project
    • 3.1(Cognitive) linguistic tasks
      • 3.1.1Metaphor families
      • 3.1.2Creating a list of target words
      • 3.1.3Linguistic metaphor identification and annotation
      • 3.1.4Conceptual metaphor identification
      • 3.1.5Data entry
    • 3.2Computational tasks
    • 3.3Cognitive-psychological tasks
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Risks and challenges
  • 6.Conclusions and future outlook
  • ?ack?
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. (2003). Conceptual metaphors: Ontology-based representation and corpora driven mapping principles. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 workshop on Lexicon and figurative language (Vol. 14, pp. 35–41). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogdanova, D. (2010). A framework for figurative language detection based on sense differentiation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 student research workshop (pp. 67–72). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brozović Rončević, D., Ćavar, D., Ćavar, M., Stojanov, T., Štrkalj Despot, K., Ljubešić, N., & Erjavec, T. (2018). Croatian language corpus Riznica 0.1. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E. K., Hong, J., & Stickles, E. (2015). MetaNet: Deep semantic automatic metaphor analysis. In E. Shutova, B. B. Klebanov, & P. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on metaphor in NLP (pp. 40–49). NAACL HLT 2015. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eilts, C., & Lönneker, B. (2002). The Hamburg Metaphor Database. Metaphorik.de, 03(2002), 100–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fass, D. (1991). met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 49–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J., Dodge, E. K., & Bryant, J. (2009). A neural theory of language and embodied construction grammar. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 111–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm: Linguistic Society of Korea (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer, & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gedigian, M., Bryant, J., Narayanan, S., & Ciric, B. (2006). Catching metaphors. ScaNaLU ‘06 Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding (pp. 41–48).
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkely.
Johnson, C. R. (1997). Constructional grounding. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In Proceedings EURALEX 2004 (pp. 105–116). Lorient, France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krennmayr T., & Steen G. J. (2017). VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation. Springer, Dordrecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnakumaran, S., & Zhu, X. (2007).Hunting elusive metaphors using lexical resources. FigLanguages ‘07 Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Figurative Language (pp. 13–20).
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Updated version, 2002]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master metaphor list, second draft copy. Berkeley, CA: Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, L., & Sporleder, C. (2010). Using gaussian mixture models to detect figurative language in context. In Human language technologies: The 2010 annual conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 297–300). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ljubešić, N., & Klubička, F. (2014). {bs, hr, sr} WaC – web corpora of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. In Proceedings of the 9th web as corpus workshop (WaC-9) (pp. 29–35).
Martin, J. H. (1990). A computational model of metaphor interpretation. Boston: Academic Press Professional, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Z. J. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpusbased conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought? Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 544–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohler, M., Bracewell, D., Hinote, D., & Tomlinson, M. (2013). Semantic signatures for example-based linguistic metaphor detection. In Proceedings of the first workshop on metaphor in NLP, Atlanta, Georgia, 13 June 2013 (pp. 27–35). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. (1997a). KARMA: Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley.
(1997b). Talking the talk is like walking the walk: A computational model of verbal aspect. In Proceedings of the 19th Cognitive Science Society Conference .
Peters, W., & Wilks, Y. (2003). Data-driven detection of figurative language use in electronic language resources. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 161–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. K., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shastri, L. (2003). Structured connectionist models. In M. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shutova, E. (2010). Models of metaphor in NLP. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 688–697). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Computational approaches to figurative language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge
Sokolova, S. (2013). Verbal prefixation and metaphor: How does metaphor interact with constructions? Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 21(1), 171–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, B. J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification, From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tonković, M., Brdar, M. & Despot, K. (In press). Is a difficult task literally heavy? Weight biases difficulty judgments. Metaphor and Social World.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T., Shutova, E., & Beigman Klebanov, B. (2016). Metaphor: A computational perspective. Morgan Claypool, Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 529–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Antloga, Špela
2023. Identifikacija metafore in metonimije v jezikovnih korpusih. Slovenščina 2.0: empirical applied and interdisciplinary research 11:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Coll-Florit, Marta & Salvador Climent
2023. Metaphor repositories: the case of the mental health metaphor dictionary. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:4 ► pp. 1440 ff. DOI logo
Despot, Kristina Š., Ana Ostroški Anić & Tony Veale
2023. “Somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall!” A proposal of implicitly offensive language typology. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:2 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Despot, Kristina Š., M. Sekulić Sović, M. Vilibić & N. Mimica
2021. Metaphor Production by Patients with Schizophrenia – A Case Analysis. Metaphor and Symbol 36:3 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Tonković, Mirjana, Mario Brdar & Kristina Š. Despot
2020. Is a difficult task literally heavy?. Metaphor and the Social World 10:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue