A fluid knowledge representation for understanding and generating creative metaphors

Coling 2008 - 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2008, Pages 945-952

  Veale, Tony ^a   Hao, Yanfen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS;

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; CONCISE REPRESENTATIONS; SEMANTIC DESCRIPTIONS; TALKING POINT; WORDNET;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 80053409272     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1599081.1599200     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Almuhareb, A. and M. Poesio. 2004. Attribute-Based and Value-Based Clustering: An Evaluation In proceedings of EMNLP, the Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing. Barcelona.
2. Almuhareb, A. and M. Poesio. 2005. Concept Learning and Categorization from the Web. In proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science society. Italy.
3. Ahlswede, T. and M. Evans. 1998. Parsing vs. Text Processing in the analysis of dictionary definitions. In proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 217-224.
4. Barnden, J. A. and M. G. Lee. 2002. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Metaphor Understanding. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6(1):399-412.
5. Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphor: studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6. Camac, K. and S. Glucksberg. 1984. Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(6).
7. Collins, A. and E. F. Loftus. 1975. A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review 82, 407-428.
8. Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133-187.
9. Fellbaum, C. (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. The MIT Press. 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English.
10. Hofstadter, D. R. and M. Mitchell. 1994. The Copycat Project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making. In Holyoak, K.J. & Barnden, J. A. (Eds.) Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory, Vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11. Hofstadter, D. R. and the Fluid Analogy Research Group. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. NY: Basic Books.
12. *: a method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1):49-90.
13. Indurkhya, B. 1992. Metaphor and Cognition: Studies in Cognitive Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: The Netherlands.
14. Martin, J. H. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. NY: Academic Press.
15. Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161-180.
16. Veale, T. and Y. Hao. 2007. Making WordNet Functional and Context-Sensitive. In proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Czech Republic.
17. Veale, T. and O'Donoghue. 2000. Computation and Blending. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), special issue on Conceptual Blending.
18. Way, E. C. 1991. Knowledge Representation and Metaphor. Studies in Cognitive systems. Holland: Kluwer.
19. Wilks, Y 1978. Making Preferences More Active, Studies in Cognitive systems. Artificial Intelligence 11(3), 197-223.