What metaphor identification systems can tell us about metaphor-in-language

This paper evaluates four metaphor identification systems on the 200,000 word VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus, comparing results by genre and by sub-class of metaphor. The paper then compares the rate of agreement between the systems for each genre and sub-class. Each of the identification systems is based, explicitly or implicitly, on a theory of metaphor which hypothesizes that certain properties are essential to metaphor-inlanguage. The goal of this paper is to see what the success or failure of these systems can tell us about the essential properties of metaphorin-language. The success of the identification systems varies significantly across genres and sub-classes of metaphor. At the same time, the different systems achieve similar success rates on each even though they show low agreement among themselves. This is taken to be evidence that there are several sub-types of metaphor-in-language and that the ideal metaphor identification system will first define these sub-types and then model the linguistic properties which can distinguish these sub-types from one another and from nonmetaphors.

[1]  Jonathan Dunn,et al.  How linguistic structure influences and helps to predict metaphoric meaning , 2013 .

[2]  Ekaterina Shutova,et al.  Models of Metaphor in NLP , 2010, ACL.

[3]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[4]  Anna Korhonen,et al.  Improving Verb Clustering with Automatically Acquired Selectional Preferences , 2009, EMNLP.

[5]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations , 2002, SGMD.

[6]  Alexandros Potamianos,et al.  SemSim: Resources for Normalized Semantic Similarity Computation Using Lexical Networks , 2012, LREC.

[7]  Jonathan Dunn.  Gradient Semantic Intuitions of Metaphoric Expressions , 2010 .

[8]  John A. Carroll,et al.  Applied morphological processing of English , 2001, Natural Language Engineering.

[9]  A. G. Dorst,et al.  Metaphor in usage , 2010 .

[10]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  The Second Release of the RASP System , 2006, ACL.

[11]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association , 2003, TOIS.

[12]  R. Gibbs,et al.  MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse , 2007 .

[13]  Simone Teufel,et al.  Metaphor Corpus Annotated for Source - Target Domain Mappings , 2010, LREC.

[14]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Literal and Metaphorical Sense Identification through Concrete and Abstract Context , 2011, EMNLP.

[15]  Caroline Sporleder,et al.  Using Gaussian Mixture Models to Detect Figurative Language in Context , 2010, NAACL.

[16]  Paul M. B. Vitányi,et al.  The Google Similarity Distance , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[17]  Jonathan Dunn,et al.  Evaluating the Premises and Results of Four Metaphor Identification Systems , 2013, CICLing.

[18]  Adam Pease,et al.  Towards a standard upper ontology , 2001, FOIS.

[19]  Yuval Krymolowski,et al.  Verb Class Discovery from Rich Syntactic Data , 2008, CICLing.

[20]  Caroline Sporleder,et al.  Classifier Combination for Contextual Idiom Detection Without Labelled Data , 2009, EMNLP.

[21]  Anna Korhonen,et al.  Metaphor Identification Using Verb and Noun Clustering , 2010, COLING.

[22]  Nancy Ide,et al.  The American National Corpus First Release , 2004, LREC.

[23]  Adam Pease,et al.  Linking Lixicons and Ontologies: Mapping WordNet to the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology , 2003, IKE.

[24]  Simone Teufel,et al.  Statistical Metaphor Processing , 2013, CL.