Cover not available
Part of
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. 75–98

Chapter 3
Metaphor in the age of mechanical production

(Or: Turning potential metaphors into deliberate metaphors)

| University College Dublin
A large repository of familiar linguistic metaphors is also an implicit repository of the knowledge any agent needs to generate and understand novel linguistic metaphors. Moreover, a sufficiently large repository of resonant juxtapositions is a rich source of the potential metaphors that an active imagination can rework and reframe as deliberate metaphors of its own. When using Web data as a knowledge resource for metaphor, it makes sense to think of the algorithms and tools for manipulating this knowledge as services that can be called upon to generate and understand deliberate metaphors on demand. A Web service called MetaphorMagnet that provides this functionality to third-party clients is presented, allowing other applications to exhibit a measure of their own figurative creativity.
Keywords: deliberate metaphors, potential metaphors, web services, Metaphor Magnet, metaphor generation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.From potential metaphors to deliberate metaphors
  • 3.Potential similes and affective models
    • 3.1Affective modelling
  • 4.Metaphor interpretation as metaphor expansion
    • 4.1Metaphor expansion
    • 4.2Metaphor in action: A worked example
  • 5.Empirical evaluation
    • 5.1The affect of stereotypes and properties
    • 5.2Placing an affective spin on stereotypes
    • 5.3Representational adequacy of metaphors
    • 5.4Human judgment
  • 6.Metaphor as a resource and a public Web service
  • 7.Conclusions: Explaining the world with deliberate metaphors
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.04vea
References (43)
References
Almuhareb, A., & Poesio, M. (2004). Attribute-based and value-based clustering: An evaluation. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2004 . Barcelona.
(2005). Concept learning and categorization from the web. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society .
Barnden, J. A. (2006). Artificial intelligence, figurative language and cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current application and future perspectives (pp. 431–459). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Ver. 1. Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fass, D. (1991). Met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 9–90.Google Scholar
(1997). Processing metonymy and metaphor. Contemporary studies in cognitive science & technology. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fishelov, D. (1992). Poetic and non-poetic simile: Structure, semantics, rhetoric. Poetics Today, 14(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2015). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. (2005). Similes and sets: The English preposition ‘like’. In Blatná, R., & Petkevic, V. (Eds.), Languages and linguistics: Festschrift for Fr. Cermak. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
(2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 17–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hearst, M. (1992). Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 539–545). DOI logo
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 7(2), 257–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. H. (1990). A computational model of metaphor interpretation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Z. J. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihalcea, R. (2002). The semantic wildcard. In Proceedings of the LREC workshop on creating and using semantics for information retrieval and filtering . Canary Islands, Spain, May 2002.
Navigli, R., & Velardi, P. (2003). An analysis of ontology-based query expansion strategies. In Proceedings of the workshop on adaptive text extraction and mining (ATEM 2003), at ECML 2003, the 14th European conference on machine learning (pp. 42–49).
Pasca, M., & Van Durme, B. (2007). What you seek is what you get: Extraction of class attributes from query logs. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artifical intelligence (pp. 2832–2837).
Salton, G. (1968). Automatic information organization and retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shutova, E. (2010). Metaphor identification using verb and noun clustering. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 1001–1010).
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 26–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. DOI logoGoogle 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. (1954). Proverbial comparisons and similes from California. Folklore Studies 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D., & Littman, M. L. (2005). Corpus-based learning of analogies and semantic relations. Machine Learning 60(1–3), 251–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information retrieval. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2004). The challenge of creative information retrieval. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2945/2004, 457–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Creative language retrieval: A robust hybrid of information retrieval and linguistic creativity. In Proceedings of ACL’2011, the 49th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics . June 2011.
(2015). Unnatural selection: Seeing human intelligence in artificial creations. Journal of General Artificial Intelligence, 6(1), 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2007a). Making lexical ontologies functional and context-sensitive. In Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the Assocciation of Computational Linguistics .
(2007b). Comprehending and generating apt metaphors: A web-driven, case-based approach to figurative language. In Proceedings of AAAI 2007, the 22nd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence . Vancouver, Canada.
(2008). Talking points in metaphor: A concise, usage-based representation for figurative processing. In Proceedings of ECAI’2008, the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence . Patras, Greece, July 2008.
(2012). In the mood for affective search with web stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web , Lyon, France. DOI logo
Veale, T., Shutova, E., & Beigman Klebanov, B. (2016). Metaphor: A computational perspective. Morgan Claypool, Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vernimb, C. (1977). Automatic query adjustment in document retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 13(6), 339–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voorhees, E. M. (1994). Query expansion using lexical-semantic relations. In Proceedings of SIGIR 94, the 17th international conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 61–69). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Using WordNet for text retrieval. In WordNet, an electronic lexical database (pp. 285–303). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilks, Y. (1978). Making preferences more active, Artificial Intelligence, 11(3), 197–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, J., & Croft, B. W. (1996). Query expansion using local and global document analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval . DOI logo