Creative language retrieval: A robust hybrid of information retrieval and linguistic creativity

ACL-HLT 2011 - Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Volumn 1, Issue , 2011, Pages 278-287

  Veale, Tony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DAILY USE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NON-LITERAL;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 84859052679     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Almuhareb, A. and Poesio, M. (2004). Attribute-Based and Value-Based Clustering: An Evaluation. In Proc. of EMNLP 2004. Barcelona.
2. Almuhareb, A. and Poesio, M. (2005). Concept Learning and Categorization from the Web. In Proc. of the 27th Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
3. Barnden, J. A. (2006). Artificial Intelligence, figurative language and cognitive linguistics. In: G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Application and Future Perspectives, 431-459. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11:211-227.
5. Boden, M. (1994). Creativity: A Framework for Research, Behavioural & Brain Sciences 17(3):558-568.
6. Brants, T. and Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Ver. 1. Linguistic Data Consortium.
7. Budanitsky, A. and Hirst, G. (2006). Evaluating Word- Net-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness. Computational Linguistics, 32(1):13-47. (Pubitemid 43764024)
8. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. and Gentner, D. (1989). Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41:1-63.
9. Fass, D. (1991). Met*: a method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1):49-90.
10. Fass, D. (1997). Processing Metonymy and Metaphor. Contemporary Studies in Cognitive Science & Technology. New York: Ablex.
11. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge.
12. Fishlov, D. (1992). Poetic and Non-Poetic Simile: Structure, Semantics, Rhetoric. Poetics Today, 14(1), 1-23.
13. Gentner, D. (1983), Structure-mapping: A Theoretical Framework. Cognitive Science 7:155-170.
14. Guilford, J.P. (1950) Creativity, American Psychologist 5(9):444-454.
15. Hanks, P. (2005). Similes and Sets: The English Preposition 'like'. In: Blatná, R. and Petkevic, V. (Eds.), Languages and Linguistics: Festschrift for Fr. Cermak. Charles University, Prague.
16. Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In: Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,. 17-35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, pp 539-545.
18. Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition: Studies in Cognitive Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: The Netherlands.
19. th international conference on Computational linguistics, 768-774.
20. MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. MIT Press.
21. Martin, J. H. (1990). A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. New York: Academic Press.
22. Mason, Z. J. (2004). CorMet: A Computational, Corpus- Based Conventional Metaphor Extraction System, Computational Linguistics, 30(1):23-44. (Pubitemid 38549032)
23. Mihalcea, R. (2002). The Semantic Wildcard. In Proc. of the LREC Workshop on Creating and Using Semantics for Information Retrieval and Filtering. Canary Islands, Spain, May 2002.
24. th European Conf. on Machine Learning, 42-49
25. Salton, G. (1968). Automatic Information Organization and Retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26. Taylor, A. (1954). Proverbial Comparisons and Similes from California. Folklore Studies 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27. Van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information Retrieval. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
28. Veale, T. (2004). The Challenge of Creative Information Retrieval. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 2945/2004, 457-467.
29. Veale, T. (2006). Re-Representation and Creative Analogy: A Lexico-Semantic Perspective. New Generation Computing 24, pp 223-240. (Pubitemid 44946112)
30. th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. of Computational Linguistics.
31. Veale, T. and Hao, Y. (2010). Detecting Ironic Intent in Creative Comparisons. In Proc. of ECAI'2010, the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
32. Veale, T. and Butnariu, C. (2010). Harvesting and Understanding On-line Neologisms. In: Onysko, A. and Michel, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word Formation. 393-416. Mouton De Gruyter.
33. Vernimb, C. (1977). Automatic Query Adjustment in Document Retrieval. Information Processing & Management. 13(6):339-353.
34. Voorhees, E. M. (1994). Query Expansion Using Lexical-Semantic Relations. In the proc. of SIGIR 94, the 17th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 61-69.
35. Voorhees, E. M. (1998). Using WordNet for text retrieval. WordNet, An Electronic Lexical Database, 285-303. The MIT Press.
36. Way, E. C. (1991). Knowledge Representation and Metaphor. Studies in Cognitive systems. Holland: Kluwer.
37. Weeds, J. and Weir, D. (2005). Co-occurrence retrieval: A flexible framework for lexical distributional similarity. Computational Linguistics, 31(4):433-475.
38. Whissell, C. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. R. Plutchnik & H. Kellerman (Eds.) Emotion: Theory and research. NY: Harcourt Brace, 113-131.
39. Wilks, Y. (1978). Making Preferences More Active, Artificial Intelligence 11.
40. th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval.