Difference between revisions of "Models of metaphor in NLP"
From Cohen Courses
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Met* System (Fass, 1991) === | === Met* System (Fass, 1991) === | ||
| − | + | * First attempt to identify and interpret metaphorical expression | |
| − | + | * Capable of discriminating between literalness, metonymy, metaphor and anomaly | |
| + | * 3-Stage Approach | ||
| + | - 1 | ||
| + | - 2 | ||
| + | - 3 | ||
=== Goatly (1997) === | === Goatly (1997) === | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 7 October 2012
Contents
Citation
E. Shutova. 2010. Models of Metaphor in NLP. In Proceedings of ACL 2010, Uppsala, Sweden.
Online version
Introduction
This is a review paper of modeling metaphors in NLP. The author devised it into two main tasks: "metaphor recognition" and "metaphor interpretation".
Metaphor Recognition
Met* System (Fass, 1991)
- First attempt to identify and interpret metaphorical expression
- Capable of discriminating between literalness, metonymy, metaphor and anomaly
- 3-Stage Approach
- 1 - 2 - 3
Goatly (1997)
Peters & Peters (2000)
CorMet System (Mason, 2004)
TroFi System(Birke & Sarkar, 2006)
Gedigan et al. (2006)
Krishnakumaran & Zhu (2007)
Metaphor Interpretation
MIDAS System (Martin, 1990)
KARMA System (Narayanan, 1997), ATT-Meta (Barnden and Lee, 2002)
Veale and Hao (2008)
Shutova (2010)
Metaphor Resources
Metaphor Annotation in Corpora
Metaphor & Polysemy
Metaphor Identification
Pragglejaz Procedure
Source - Target Domain Vocabulary
Annotating Source and target Domains
Related papers
The widely cited Pang et al EMNLP 2002 paper was influenced by this paper - but considers supervised learning techniques. The choice of movie reviews as the domain was suggested by the (relatively) poor performance of Turney's method on movies.
An interesting follow-up paper is Turney and Littman, TOIS 2003 which focuses on evaluation of the technique of using PMI for predicting the semantic orientation of words.
