Lexical Conceptual Structure of Literal and Metaphorical Spatial Language: A Case Study of “Push”

Prior methodologies for understanding spatial language have treated literal expressions such as “Mary pushed the car over the edge” differently from metaphorical extensions such as “Mary’s job pushed her over the edge”. We demonstrate a methodology for standardizing literal and metaphorical meanings, by building on work in Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS), a general-purpose representational component used in machine translation. We argue that spatial predicates naturally extend into other fields (e.g., circumstantial or temporal), and that LCS provides both a framework for distinguishing spatial from non-spatial, and a system for finding metaphorical meaning extensions. We start with MetaNet (MN), a large repository of conceptual metaphors, condensing 197 spatial entries into sixteen top-level categories of motion frames. Using naturally occurring instances of English push , and expansions of MN frames, we demonstrate that literal and metaphorical extensions exhibit patterns predicted and represented by the LCS model.

[1]  A. Wierzbicka,et al.  Semantics and cognition. , 2006, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[2]  Bonnie J. Dorr,et al.  Large-Scale Dictionary Construction for Foreign Language Tutoring and Interlingual Machine Translation , 1998, Machine Translation.

[3]  Bonnie J. Dorr,et al.  Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon , 1994, CL.

[4]  Ellen Dodge,et al.  MetaNet: Deep semantic automatic metaphor analysis , 2015 .

[5]  Nizar Habash,et al.  Generation from Lexical Conceptual Structures , 2000 .

[6]  Mark Last,et al.  Metaphor Identification in Large Texts Corpora , 2013, PloS one.

[7]  Nizar Habash,et al.  Handling translation divergences: combining statistical and symbolic techniques in generation-heavy machine translation , 2002, AMTA.

[8]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Language, vision and metaphor , 1995, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[9]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Token-Level Metaphor Detection using Neural Networks , 2016 .

[10]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Belief Ascription, Metaphor, and Intensional Identification , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Neville Ryant,et al.  A large-scale classification of English verbs , 2008, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[12]  Lena Osterhagen,et al.  Word Meaning And Montague Grammar , 2016 .

[13]  Elise Stickles,et al.  Cascades in metaphor and grammar: A case study of metaphors in the gun debate , 2016 .

[14]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  Grammatical constructions , frame structure , and metonymy : Their contributions to metaphor computation , 2015 .

[15]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[16]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[17]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[18]  Stephen Wechsler Lexical semantic structure , 2015 .

[19]  Toward compact monotonically compositional interlingua using lexical aspect , 1997 .

[20]  Bonnie J. Dorr,et al.  Deriving Verbal and Compositonal Lexical Aspect for NLP Applications , 1997, ACL.

[21]  R. Jackendoff The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in english , 1996 .