Difference between revisions of "Models of metaphor in NLP"
From Cohen Courses
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
== Metaphor Interpretation == | == Metaphor Interpretation == | ||
| + | |||
| + | === MIDAS System (Martin, 1990) === | ||
| + | |||
| + | === KARMA System (Narayanan, 1997), ATT-Meta (Barnden and Lee, 2002) === | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Veale and Hao (2008) === | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Shutova (2010) === | ||
== Related papers == | == Related papers == | ||
Revision as of 15:19, 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)
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)
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.
