An Affective-Similarity-Based Method for Comprehending Attributional Metaphors

This paper proposes a new computational method for comprehending attributional metaphors. The proposed method generates deeper interpretations of metaphors than other methods through the process of figurative mapping that transfers affectively similar features of the source concept onto the target concept. Any features are placed on a common two-dimensional space revealed in the domain of psychology, and similarity of two features is calculated as a distance between them in the space. A computational model of metaphor comprehension based on the method has been implemented in a computer program called PROMIME (PROtotype system of Metaphor Interpreter with MEtaphorical mapping). Comparison between the PROMIME system's output and human interpretation shows that the performance of the proposed method is satisfactory.

[1]  Effects of categorical dissimilarity and affective similarity between constituent words on metaphor appreciation , 1987 .

[2]  Bipin Indurkhya,et al.  Approximate Semantic Transference: A Computational Theory of Metaphors and Analogies , 1987 .

[3]  Takenobu Tokunaga,et al.  A Method of Calculating the Measure of Salience in Understanding Metaphors , 1990, AAAI.

[4]  E. Judith Weiner,et al.  A Nowledge Representation Approach to Understanding Metaphors , 1984, Comput. Linguistics.

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

[6]  D. Medin,et al.  Context and structure in conceptual combination , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  A. Ortony.  Beyond Literal Similarity , 1979 .

[8]  A. Becker.  Emergent and Common Features Influence Metaphor Interpretation , 1997 .

[9]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Understanding and appreciating metaphors , 1982, Cognition.

[10]  T. Kusumi.  [Comprehension of synesthetic expressions: cross-modal modifications of sense adjectives]. , 1988, Shinrigaku kenkyu : The Japanese journal of psychology.

[11]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Some Issues in the Measurement of Children's Comprehension of Metaphorical Language. Technical Report No. 172. , 1980 .

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

[13]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Evidence for Relational Selectivity in the Interpretation of Analogy and Metaphor , 1988 .

[14]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Interpreting and evaluating metaphors , 1991 .

[15]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. , 1988 .

[16]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  C. Osgood,et al.  The Measurement of Meaning , 1958 .

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

[19]  E. Judith Weiner.  Solving the Containment Problem for Figurative Language , 1985, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[20]  James H. Martin.  Computer Understanding of Conventional Metaphoric Language , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .