An investigation into figurative language in the ‘LOLITA' NLP system

The classical and folk theory view on metaphor and figurative language assumes that metaphor is a rare occurrence, restricted to the realms of poetry and rhetoric. Recent results have, however, unarguably shown that figurative language of various complexity exhibits great systematicity and is pervasive in everyday language and texts. If the ubiquity of figurative language cannot be disputed, however, any natural language processing (NLP) system aiming at processing text beyond a restricted scope has to be able to deal with figurative language. This is particularly true if the processing is to be based on deep techniques, where a deep analysis of the input is performed. The LOLITA NLP system employs deep techniques and, therefore, must be capable of dealing with figurative input. The task of natural language (NL) generation is affected by the naturalness of figurative language, too. For if metaphors are frequent and natural, NL generation not capable of handling figurative language will seem restricted and its output unnatural. This thesis describes the work undertaken to examine the options for extending the LOLITA system in the direction of figurative language processing and the results of this project. The work critically examines previous approaches and their contribution to the field, before outlining a solution which follows the principles of natural language engineering.

[1]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[2]  M. Beardsley Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts , 1981 .

[3]  M. Turner,et al.  Death Is the Mother of Beauty , 1987 .

[4]  M. Black Models and metaphors , 1962 .

[5]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  Viewing Metaphor as Analogy , 1988 .

[6]  H. Grice Further Notes on Logic and Conversation , 1978 .

[7]  D. Davidson What Metaphors Mean , 1978, Critical Inquiry.

[8]  Dan Fass,et al.  met*: A Method for Discriminating Metonymy and Metaphor by Computer , 1991, CL.

[9]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Aptness in metaphor , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  John R. Searle,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1970 .

[11]  Ron Sun,et al.  A Microfeature Based Approach Towards Metaphor Interpretation , 1995, IJCAI.

[12]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  The Case-Slot Identity Theory , 1981, Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Mark L. Johnson The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning , 1987 .

[14]  Roberto Garigliano,et al.  A New Transformation into Deterministically Parsable Form for Natural Language Grammars , 1993, IWPT.

[15]  I. Richards The Philosophy of Rhetoric , 1936 .

[16]  Mark H. Smith,et al.  Generation in the LOLITA System: An Engineering Approach , 1994, INLG.

[17]  Tony Veale,et al.  Conceptual Scaffolding: Using Metaphors to Build Knowledge Structures , 1992, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Tony Veale,et al.  CONCEPTUAL SCAFFOLDING: A SPATIALLY FOUNDED MEANING REPRESENTATION FOR METAPHOR COMPREHENSION , 1992, Comput. Intell..

[19]  Tony Veale,et al.  Epistemological Pitfalls in Metaphor Comprehension: A Comparison of Three Models and a New Theory of Metaphor , 1995 .

[20]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  R. Gibbs The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding , 1994 .