Article published In:
MetaNetEdited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 295–322
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 295–322
Automatic metaphor detection using constructions and frames
This paper presents MetaNet’s automatic metaphor detection system that applies theoretical principles from construction grammar, frame semantics, and recent developments in conceptual metaphor theory, including the theory of cascades (Lakoff 2014). The system has achieved relative success in identifying metaphorical expressions for a range of target domains from large corpora and holds promise as a useful tool for corpus-based study of metaphor. The detection system relies on MetaNet’s conceptual network of frames and metaphors as a computational resource for its functionality, and improves automatically as the representations stored in the network are built up. In addition, because of its theoretically principled design the system’s level of accuracy at identifying metaphorical expressions provides feedback to linguists about the accuracy of the frame and metaphor analyses in the network.
References (45)
Bergen, B.K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Briscoe, T., Carroll, J., & Watson, R. (2006). The second release of the RASP system. In Proceedings of the
COLING/ACL on interactive presentation sessions
(pp. 77–80). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., & van Harmelen, F. (2003). Sesame: An architecture for storing and querying RDF data and schema information. In D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman, & W. Wahlster (Eds.), Spinning the semantic web: Bringing the world wide web to its full potential (pp. 197–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryant, J. (2004). Scalable construction-based parsing and semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the
Second International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding
. Boston.
Chang, N., De Beule, J., & Micelli, V. (2012). Computational construction grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG. In L. Steels (Ed.), Computational issues in fluid construction grammar (pp. 259–288). Berlin: Springer.
Clausner, T.C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–32.
de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., & Manning, C.D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006
(pp. 449–454). Genoa, Italy: ELRA.
Feldman, J., Dodge, E., & Bryant, J. (2015). Embodied construction grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 121–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C.J. (1988). The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C.J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). Stanford: CSLI.
Gedigian, M., Bryant, J., Narayanan, S., & Ciric, B. (2006). Catching metaphors. In Proceedings of the
third workshop on scalable natural language understanding
(pp. 41–48). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harris, S., & Seaborne, A. (2013). SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C recommendation, 211. Retrieved from [URL].
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krötzsch, M., Vrandečić, D., & Völkel, M. (2006). Semantic Mediawiki. In
ISWC’06: Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference
(pp. 935–942). Berlin: Springer.
Lakoff, G. (1993a). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
. (1993b). How metaphor structures dreams: The theory of conceptual metaphor applied to dream analysis. Dreaming, 3(2), 77–98.
. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785.
. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(958).
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books.
Lloberes, M., Castellón, I., & Padró, L. (2010). Spanish freeLing dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the
Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2010
(pp. 693–699). Valletta, Malta: ELRA.
Martin, J.H. (1990). A computational model of metaphor interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Professional.
Mason, Z.J. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44.
McGuinness, D.L., & van Harmelen, F. (2004). OWL web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation, 10. Retrieved from [URL].
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
(pp. 27–35). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., & Marsi, E. (2007). MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95–135.
Padró, L., & Stanilovsky, E. (2012). FreeLing 3.0: Towards wider multilinguality. In Proceedings of the
Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2012
(pp. 2473–2479). Istanbul, Turkey: ELRA.
Pan, J.Z. (2009). Resource description framework. In S. Staab & R. Studer (Eds.), Handbook on ontologies (pp. 71–90). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., Baker, C.F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute. Retrieved from [URL].
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of
International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing
. Retrieved from [URL].
Shutova, E. (2010). Models of metaphor in NLP. In Proceedings of the
48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
(pp. 688–697). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Shutova, E., Sun, L., & Korhonen, A. (2010). Metaphor identification using verb and noun clustering. In Proceedings of the
23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics
(pp. 1002–1010). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Steels, L. (Ed.). (2011). Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (Ed.). (2012). Computational issues in fluid construction grammar. Berlin: Springer.
. (Ed.). (to appear). The basics of fluid construction grammar. Constructions and Frames.
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A.A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Turney, P.D., Neuman, Y., Assaf, D., & Cohen, Y. (2011). Literal and metaphorical sense identification through concrete and abstract context. In Proceedings of the
2011 Conference on the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
(pp. 680–690). Retrieved from [URL].
Veale, T. (2014). Running with scissors: Cut-ups, boundary friction and creative reuse. In International Conference on
Case-Based Reasoning
(pp. 3–16). Springer International Publishing.
Veale, T., & Li, G. (2011). Creative introspection and knowledge acquisition: Learning about the world thru introspective questions and exploratory metaphors. In W. Burgard & D. Roth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th AAAI international conference of the association for the advancement of AI. San Francisco, CA.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Ong, Matthew & Shai Gordin
2024. Linguistic annotation of cuneiform texts using treebanks and deep learning. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 39:1 ► pp. 296 ff. 
Wan, Mingyu, Qi Su, Kathleen Ahrens & Chu-Ren Huang
2024. Perceptional and actional enrichment for metaphor detection with sensorimotor norms. Natural Language Engineering 30:6 ► pp. 1181 ff.
Law, James
Majdik, Zoltan P.
2019. A Computational Approach to Assessing Rhetorical Effectiveness: Agentic Framing of Climate Change in the Congressional Record, 1994–2016. Technical Communication Quarterly 28:3 ► pp. 207 ff.
Sweetser, Eve, Oana David & Elise Stickles
2019. MetaNet. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 23 ff.
DAVID, OANA & TEENIE MATLOCK
2018. Cross-linguistic automated detection of metaphors for poverty and cancer. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 467 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 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.