DOCSLIB.ORG

A Machine Learning Approach to Metaphor Interpretation Using Usage-Based Construction Grammatical Cues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Machine Learning Approach to Metaphor Interpretation Using Usage-Based Construction Grammatical Cues Computationally Constructed Concepts: A Machine Learning Approach to Metaphor Interpretation Using Usage-Based Construction Grammatical Cues Zachary Rosen Department of Linguistics The University of Colorado, Boulder 295 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309 [email protected] Abstract metaphor interpretation is still relatively new, and a growing number of researchers are beginning to The current study seeks to implement a explore the topic in greater depth. Recently, work deep learning classification algorithm us- by the team behind Berkeley’s MetaNet has shown ing argument-structure level representation of that a constructional and frame-semantic ontol- metaphoric constructions, for the identifica- tion of source domain mappings in metaphoric ogy can be used to accurately identify metaphoric utterances. It thus builds on previous utterances and generate possible source domain work in computational metaphor interpretation mappings, though at the cost of requiring a large (Mohler et al. 2014; Shutova 2010; Bolle- database of metaphoric exemplars (Dodge et al. gala & Shutova 2013; Hong 2016; Su et al. 2015; Hong 2016). Researchers from the Depart- 2017) while implementing a theoretical frame- ment of Cognitive Science at Xiamen University work based off of work in the interface of (Su et al. 2017) report that, using word embed- metaphor and construction grammar (Sullivan 2006, 2007, 2013). The results indicate that it dings, they have created a system that can reliably is possible to achieve an accuracy of approx- identify nominal-specific conceptual metaphors as imately 80.4% using the proposed method, well as interpret them, albeit within a very lim- combining construction grammatical features ited scope–the nominal modifier metaphors that with a simple deep learning NN. I attribute they work with only include metaphors in which this increase in accuracy to the use of con- the source and target domain share what they structional cues, extracted from the raw text of refer to as a ”direct ancestor”, such as in the metaphoric instances. case of ”the surgeon is a butcher”, limiting re- searchers to analyzing noun phrases with modi- 1 Introduction fiers that exist in a single source and target do- Lakoff’s theory of conceptual metaphor has been main. Other approaches have included develop- highly influential in cognitive linguistic research ing literal paraphrases of metaphoric utterances since its initial publication (Lakoff & Johnson (Shutova 2010; Bollegala & Shutova 2013), and, 1980). Conceptual metaphors represent fine- as an ancestor to the current study, clustering the- grained mappings of abstract concepts like ”love” matic co-occurents–the AGENT, PATIENT, and to more concrete, tangible phenomena, like ”jour- ATTRIBUTE of the metaphoric sentence–which neys” which have material and culturally salient allowed researchers to predict a possible source attributes like a PATH, various LANDMARKS, domain label–think: ”The bill blocked the way and a THEME which undergoes movement from forward”, where for the word ”bill” the system a SOURCE to a GOAL (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). predicted that it mapped to a ”PHYSICAL OB- These tangible phenomena then serve as the basis JECT” role in the source domain (Mohler et al. for models from which speakers can reason about 2014). abstract ideas in a culturally transmissible manner. For example, consider the following metaphoric 2 Construction Grammatical mappings for the metaphor LOVE IS MAGIC, as Approaches to Metaphor shown in figure 1. To date, while automatic metaphor detection The constructional makeup of metaphoric lan- has been explored in some length, computational guage has been explored at some length by a 102 Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 102–109 New Orleans, Louisiana, June 6, 2018. c 2018 Association for Computational Linguistics LOVER is a MAGICIAN She cast her spell over me ATTRACTION is a SPELL I was spellbound A RELATIONSHIP is BEWITCHMENT He has me in a trance Figure 1: Metaphoric Mapping & Example handful of researchers to date. Karen Sullivan, independent of cues beyond the sentence itself. for example, has done considerable work on both how syntactic structures (i.e. constructions) re- 3 Data Collection strict the interpretation of metaphoric utterances in predictable ways by both instantiating a seman- All the examples in this experiment were taken tic frame and mapping the target domain referent from the EN-Small LCC Metaphor Dataset, com- to a semantic role within the instantiated frame piled and annotated by Mohler et al. (2016). (Sullivan 2006, 2009, 2013). Notable examples of The corpus contains 16,265 instances of concep- computational implementations of Sullivan’s the- tual metaphors from government discourse, in- ories include Stickles et al. (2016) and Dodge cluding immediate context sentences preceding et al. (2015), who have compiled a database and following them. Each sentence is given a of metaphoric frames–MetaNet–organized into an metaphoricity score, ranging from ”-1” to ”3”, ontology of source domains for researchers to where ”3” indicates high confidence that the sen- use in analyzing metaphoric utterances, similar to tence is metaphoric, ”0” indicates that the sen- FrameNet. tence was not metaphoric, and ”-1” indicates an in- valid syntactic relationship between the target and One of the advantages of construction gram- source domain referents in the sentence (Mohler mar with respect to figurative language interpre- et al. 2016). Additionally, the corpus is annotated tation lies in the regularity with which construc- for polarity (negative, neutral, and positive), inten- tions establish form-meaning pairings. The var- sity, and situational protagonists (i.e.: the ”gov- ious meanings of constructions rely heavily on ernment”, ”individuals”, etc.). Though not anno- particular ”cues”–cues including the verb, as well tated for every sentence, the most important an- as the syntactic template and argument-structure– notations for this study were the annotations for which point speakers in the direction of a spe- source-target domain mappings. There was a total cific interpretation (Goldberg 2006). For the pur- of 7,941 sentences annotated for these mappings, pose of the current study, I will be focusing on with 108 source domain tags, annotated by five an- the argument-structure of metaphoric utterances notators (Mohler et al. 2016). Each annotator in- which, though it supplies a rather course-grained dicated not only what they thought the source do- view of the meaning of an utterance, provides an main was, but also gave the example an additional excellent and stable constructional cue with re- metaphoricity score based on their opinion. spect to its interpretation (Goldberg 2006). As an For the purposes of this study, I only used example of how this might work, consider the dif- the metaphoric instances that were annotated for ference between ”the Holidays are coming up on source-target domain mappings. For the source us” and ”we’re coming up on the Holidays.” In the domain labels, I selected the labels made by the first sentence, ”the Holidays” is established as be- annotator who had marked the example for having ing mapped to a MOVING OBJECT in the source the highest metaphoricity. I initially attempted to domain by virtue of its position in the argument- select the metaphoric source domain annotations structure of the sentence. Meanwhile, in the sec- that had the highest agreement amongst the an- ond utterance ”the Holidays” is mapped to a LO- notators who had annotated the sentence, but this CATION or GOAL in the source domain due to its proved trickier than I had anticipated. After cal- change in position in the argument-structure of the culating the average Cohen Kappa score (54.4%), construction. Implicitly, this means that important I decided that selecting labels based on their asso- information about the interpretation of a construc- ciated metaphoricity would be better. This effec- tion can be gleaned through extracting the argu- tively removed two annotators from the pool, who ments that fill its argument-structure and analyz- consistently ranked each metaphoric sentence as ing these arguments’ relationships to one another, having a metaphoricity score of 1 or less. 103 I further restricted the training and test data by corpus example, and found the verb that it was excluding multi-word expressions from the dataset directly dependent on in the sentence. This en- for simplicity, though in the future I would very sured that the target domain referent was in its much like to re-test the methods outlined in the immediate context. Once the verb was found, I rest of this paper including the omitted MWEs. Fi- then built a representation of the argument struc- nally, I removed any source domain annotations ture of the sentence by extracting the following that included only a single example and split the dependencies–(1) the verb for which the target do- data in training and testing data sets, using 85% main referent was a dependency, (2) the subject of as training data, and 15% as testing data. Be- the verb in 1, (3) the object of the verb in 1, and cause of my exclusion of MWEs and metaphoric if the target domain referent was not included in source domain tags that were used only once, this the subject or direct object, (4) the target domain left me with a total of 1985 sentences used in this referent as a nominal modifier and (5) any prepo- experiment–1633 of those were used in the train- sitional arguments that it had as a dependency. ing data, and 352 reserved for test data–with 77 Additionally, I extracted (6) the universal depen- source domain labels. The source labels were con- dency tags for each of the arguments in the verb’s verted to integers and used as classes in the follow- argument-structure, and converted that into a list ing Deep Neural Net (DNN) classifier. of tags that I simply labeled ”syntax”, or ”SYN”, based off the assumption that knowing what the 4 The Neural Network Approach to dependencies were might help in identifying the Source Domain Interpretation exact relationships between the lexemes that had been collected.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Art and Science of Framing an Issue
    MAPThe Art and Science of Framing an Issue Authors Contributing Editors © January 2008, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP). All rights reserved. “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 The Art and Science of 1 Framing an Issue an Issue and Science of Framing Art The The Battle Over Ideas 2 Understanding How People Think 2 What Is Framing? 4 Levels of Framing 5 Tying to Values 6 Why Should I Spend Resources on Framing? 6 How Do I Frame My Issue? 7 Step 1. Understand the Mindset of Your Target Audience 7 Step 2. Know When Your Current Frames Aren’t Working 7 Step 3. Know the Elements of a Frame 7 Step 4. Speak to People’s Core Values 9 Step 5. Avoid Using Opponents’ Frames, Even to Dispute Them 9 Step 6. Keep Your Tone Reasonable 10 Step 7. Avoid Partisan Cues 10 Step 8. Build a New Frame 10 Step 9. Stick With Your Message 11 “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 2 The Battle Over Ideas Are we exploring for oil that’s desperately needed to drive our economy and sustain our nation? Or are we Think back to when you were 10 years old, staring at destroying delicate ecological systems and natural your dinner plate, empty except for a pile of soggy– lands that are a legacy to our grandchildren? These looking green vegetables.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakoff's Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Communication Studies Communication Studies, Department of 11-2013 Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Damien S. Pfister University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Jessy J. Ohl University of Mary Washington, [email protected] Marty Nader Nebraska Wesleyan University, [email protected] Dana Griffin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Pfister, Damien S.; Ohl, Jessy J.; Nader, Marty; and Griffin,a D na, "Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012" (2013). Papers in Communication Studies. 53. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Communication Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Communication Studies 64:5 (November-December 2013; Special Issue: Consistency and Change in Political Campaign Communication: Ana- lyzing the 2012 Elections), pages 488-507; doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.832340 Copyright © 2013 Central States Communication Association; published by Tay- digitalcommons.unl.edu lor & Francis Group. Used by permission. Published online October 18, 2013. Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Jessy J. Ohl,1 Damien S. Pfister,1 Martin Nader,2 and Dana Griffin 1 Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Corresponding author — Jessy J.
    [Show full text]
  • George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors We Live By
    George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press. Noter om layout: - Sidetall øverst - Et par figurer slettet - Referanser til slutt Innholdsfortegnelse i Word: George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press. ......................................................................................................................1 Noter om layout:...................................................................................................................1 Innholdsfortegnelse i Word:.................................................................................................1 Contents................................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................6 1. Concepts We Live By .....................................................................................................8 2. The Systematicity of Metaphorical Concepts ...............................................................11 3. Metaphorical Systematicity: Highlighting and Hiding.................................................13 4. Orientational Metaphors.................................................................................................16 5. Metaphor and Cultural Coherence .................................................................................21 6 Ontological
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence
    Metaphors We Live By1 Three Commentaries on Artificial Intelligence and the Human Condition Anne Dippel Prelude In the following essay, I want to bring together three stand-alone commentaries, each dealing with a different facet of artificial intelligence, and each revolving around a different underlying metaphor: intelligence, evolution, and play. The first commentary constitutes an auto-ethnographic vignette, which provides a framework for the reflection on artificial “intelligence” and the alleged capacity of machines to “think”; both very problematic metaphors from the feminist per- spective on (predominantly) female labour of bearing and rearing intelligent hu- man beings. The second one is an insight into my current ethnographic fieldwork amongst high-energy physicists who use machine-learning methods in their daily work and succumb to a Darwinist metaphor in imagining the significance of evo- lutionary algorithms for the future of humanity. The third commentary looks into “playing” algorithms and brings into the conversation the much-debated anthro- pological category of an “alien” which, as I argue, is much more relevant in order to understand AI than a direct personification, bringing a non-human entity to life. A New Non-artificial Intelligent Life is Born I am looking at a newly born human being. Day by day I keep him company, as he practices increasingly complex bodily movements, senses the inner emotions of other bodies around him or reacts to a sea of indistinguishable voices, despite not being able to understand the meaning of a single word. While he keeps to his 1 The title of a famous book published by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with George Lakoff
    An Inrerview with George Lakoff An Interview with George Lakoff FRANCISCO JOSÉ RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ Universidad de La Rioja CICigüeña, 60 Logroño - 26004 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE George Lakoff teaches linguistics and cognitive science at the University of Califomia, Berkeley. Together with such figures as James McCawley, Paul Postal, and Haj Ross, he was one of the founders of the Generative Semantics movement in the 1960's. This represented the earliest major depamre from the standard Chomskyan Generative Transformational Grammar by demonstrating the fundamental role played by semantics and pragmatics in grammar. Since the mid-1970's Lakoff has become a leading figure in the development of Cognitive Liistics, which grounds linguistic theory in empirical findings from the field of Cognitive Psychology . He has studied conceptual systems in depth, although the bulk of his most recent research has increasingly focused on metaphor and its consequences for abstract reasoning. He is the author of Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, and co-author of Metaphors We Live By (with Mark Johnson), and More Than Cool Reason (with Mark Turner). His most recent book, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, analyses the language of political discourse and demonstrates that conservative and liberal ideas are based on opposite metaphorical models of the family and morality. At present, he is writing Philosophy in the Flesh, in collaboration with Mark Johnson, which interprets philosophy from the point of view of cognitive science. He is also working, with Rafael Núiíez, on the metaphorical stnicture of mathematics. INTERVIEW' Good afternoon, Professor Lakoff. First of all, I'd like to go back to rhe late 1960's and early 1970's.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphor: a Computational Perspective
    Strapparava, Carlo. 2018. Book Reviews. Computational Linguistics, uncorrected proof. Metaphor: A Computational Perspective Tony Veale, Ekaterina Shutova, and Beata Beigman Klebanov (University College Dublin, University of Cambridge, Educational Testing Service) Morgan & Claypool (Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, edited by Graeme Hirst, volume 31), 2016, xi+148 pp; paperback, ISBN 9781627058506, $55.00; ebook, ISBN 9781627058513; doi:10.2200/S00694ED1V01Y201601HLT031 Reviewed by Carlo Strapparava FBK-irst Metaphors are intriguing. We know that George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, in their book Metaphors We Live By, pointed out that our daily language is full of metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Metaphors are not rare at all as linguistic events and in general as a means of human communication (e.g., in visual art). Thus, more than an exception, they seem to be a necessity for our mind. People use metaphors as strategies to link concepts, to deal with situations, and sometimes to suggest solutions to problems. For example, you can see criminality as a monster or as an illness. What you have in mind to deal with it is probably to fight in the former case, and to cure or to plan prevention in the latter. Nonetheless, metaphors are extremely difficult to model in a computational framework. What is literal? What is metaphorical? Making this distinction has often proved to be a daunting task, even for a human judgment. Metaphors—so bound to our way of thinking and entangled with a huge quantity of knowledge and linguistics subtleties— constitute an excellent research problem for computational linguistics and artificial intelligence in general. We could probably say that they belong to the AI-complete problems.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Language and Thought Influence Each Other?
    Original paper UDC 1:81(045) doi: 10.21464/sp32206 Received: September 4, 2017 Ljudevit Fran Ježić University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ivana Lučića 3, HR–10000 Zagreb [email protected] How Do Language and Thought Influence Each Other? A Reconsideration of Their Relationship with Parallel References to the History of Philosophy and Cognitive Linguistics Abstract The paper explores the relationship of language and thought with respect to their mutual determination or influence. Two questions are considered crucial: how do we learn the meanings of conventional linguistic signs, including those for abstract concepts, and how do we express our original insights, thoughts and feelings through not-yet-conventional lin- guistic means. These are followed by succinct answers and extensive elaborations referring to opposite views and linguistic examples from the history of philosophy and cognitive lin- guistics. It is argued that linguistic expressions, including metaphors, mostly incorporate how people represent (or once represented) the world to themselves through imagination and present (or once presented) the world to others through language. Hence language neither directly shows how we conceive and understand the world nor how we construct it in our thoughts. On the other hand, symbolization through metaphor and metonymy, as well as innovative verbalization, enable our cognition to communicate novel as well as abstract and philosophically demanding meanings. Keywords language, thought, cognition, conceptual metaphor,
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Semantics: in the Heart of Language an Interview with George Lakoff
    ENTREVISTA COGNITIVE SEMANTICS: IN THE HEART OF LANGUAGE AN INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE LAKOFF George Lakoff estréia a seção ENTREVISTA de nossa revista. A escolha desse eminente professor da University of California., campus de Berkeley, onde trabalha desde 1972, não será estranha ao público brasileiro. Lakoff, na entrevista, fala de sua contribulição à Semântica Gerativa e das razões que o levaram a abandonar o programa científico da Gramática Gerativa. Nos últimos anos, mais especificamente após a publicação de Metaphors we live by (1980)1 , livro escrito em colaboração com Mark Johnson, Lakoff vem desenvolvendo seu trabalho em Semântica Cognitiva, um dos ramos da Lingüística Cognitiva, que, por sua vez, conta também com a colaboração de autores como Ronald Langacker, Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay e Gilles Fauconnier. Nessa entrevista, Lakoff discute pontos centrais do programa científico da Lingüística Cognitiva (doravante LC), embora sua atenção esteja voltada para os problemas do sentido. Graças à participação de muitos, tive a oportunidade de encon- trar o professor Lakoff durante o V International Congress of Cognitive Metaphors we live by ainda não foi traduzido para o português, mas o grupo GEM (Grupo de Estudos da Metáfora) coordenado pela Profa. Mara Sophia Zanotto está trabalhando na sua tradução. Fórum Lingüístico, Fpolis, n. 1 (83-119), jul.-dez. 1998 84 Fórum Lingüístico Linguistics, realizado no ano passado em Amsterdam. Agradeço, em especial, a alguns colegas que prontamente sugeriram tópicos para a entrevista. A problemática relativa ao papel do social na formulação de nossos conceitos - a hipótese básica da LC é de que nossos conceitos, que se manifestam no nosso falar cotidiano, derivam-se de nossas interações corpóreas com o meio ambiente - teve como ponto de disparo o questionamento levantado por Paula Lenz Costa Lima e Edson Françoso.
    [Show full text]
  • George Lakoff's "Metaphors of Terror"
    Metaphors We Die By: George Lakoff’s “Metaphors Of Terror” Franklin E. Horowitz George Lakoff’s response to September 11, “Metaphors of Terror,” first appeared in the on-line magazine In These Times of October 29, 2001. In it he introduces himself as a “metaphor analyst”; yet his metaphor analysis has only minimal bearing on his primary objective, which is to influence policy. He expresses legitimate concerns over the Bush administration’s almost exclusive focus on military action rather than on addressing the “culture of despair that leaves people vulnerable to the idea of martyrdom,” and over its lack of compunction about curtailing individual liberties. On the other hand, he tends to be cavalier about the immediate external dangers that September 11 made apparent. For instance, he points out that “most security experts say that there is no sure way to keep terrorists out,” as though this were an all-or-nothing proposition. When Lakoff, in collaboration with Mark Johnson, brought out Metaphors We Live By in 1980, it was a trailblazing event in linguistics. They showed that metaphor, in the sense of “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another,” was not simply a device of poetic literature but was central to everyday language and everyday living. Now in “Metaphors of Terror,” Lakoff asserts: “The physical violence was not only in New York and Washington. Physical changes—violent ones—have been made to the brains of all Americans.” These changes involve the impact, often unconscious, of the images of the events themselves on metaphorical systems already present in our neural networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Mathematics Comes from 0465037704Fm.Qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page Ii 0465037704Fm.Qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page Iii
    0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page i Where Mathematics Comes From 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page ii 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page iii Where Mathematics Comes From How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being George Lakoff Rafael E. Núñez A Member of the Perseus Books Group 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page iv Copyright © 2000 by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez Published by Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Group All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address Basic Books, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299. Designed by Rachel Hegarty Library of Congress cataloging-in-publication data Lakoff, George. Where mathematics comes from : how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being / George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-465-03770-4 1. Number concept. 2. Mathematics—Psychological aspects. 3. Mathematics—Philosophy. I. Núñez, Rafael E., 1960– . II. Title. QA141.15.L37 2000 510—dc21 00-034216 CIP FIRST EDITION 00 01 02 03 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page v To Rafael’s parents, César Núñez and Eliana Errázuriz, to George’s wife, Kathleen Frumkin, and to the memory of James D. McCawley 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page vi 0465037704fm.qxd 8/23/00 9:49 AM Page vii Contents Acknowledgments ix Preface
    [Show full text]
  • Chomsky's Revolution and Behaviourist Psychology More Gener­ Neil Smith Ally
    BOOK REVIEWS cognitive scientists and resulted in the overthrow of Bloomfieldian linguistics Chomsky's revolution and behaviourist psychology more gener­ Neil Smith ally. He explains the elegance of 'deep structure' and the power of Chomsky's The Linguistics Wars. By Randy Allen Harris. Oxford University Press: 1993. Pp. 356. conception of language as expounded in £22, $30. the 'standard theory', and then shows how a disparate group of young scholars, the generative semanticists, effectively hi­ NOAM Chomsky's position in the history that constrain the development of lan­ jacked the fledgling theory and developed of ideas is comparable to that of Darwin or guage. That is, the putative hypothesis it in ways so radical that Chomsky soon Descartes. In this century his peers in space of the infant language-learner in­ came to be seen as a reactionary fighting a influence are the unlikely trio of Einstein, cludes so few possibilities that the task of rearguard action against the forces of Picasso and Freud, with each of whom he language acquisition is dramatically sim­ progress. has something in common. Like Darwin plified. For instance, the principle of The sequel to this apparent decline was and Descartes, Chomsky has redefined 'structure dependence' ensures that no remarkable. After a decade of academic our understanding of ourselves as hu­ child will ever entertain the hypothesis savagery in which the discipline was sev­ mans; like Freud- but with added intel­ that one way of relating sentences is to erely factionalized, it was Chomsky rather lectual rig our- he has revolutionized our reverse their word order, so that the than the young Turks who emerged victo­ view of the mind; like Einstein, he blends question (or negative, or future tense) of rious.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking Presidentially Computationally Identifying Metaphors in the Speeches of Presidential Candidates
    Myers 1 Speaking Presidentially Computationally Identifying Metaphors in the Speeches of Presidential Candidates by Vladimir Myers Myers 2 Abstract Renowned Cognitive Linguist, George Lakoff, posited a theory about the metaphorical basis of political ideology in his book Moral Politics (1998/2002). Lakoff noted that cognitive linguistics has established that people tend to think in metaphors. Lakoff noticed that liberals and conservatives use very different metaphors when describing government and politics. While both sides tend to view politics through the Nation as a Family metaphor, liberals and conservatives differ on what that ideal family (and by extension, government) should look like. This then translates into different conceptual metaphors, observed through the speaking styles of politicians and ideologues of both sides. While a compelling theory, Lakoff admits that he did not base it off of any rigorous experimental or analytical design and this is mostly confirmed through observation and experience. This paper takes an unprecedented approach by seeking to test this political theory empirically by using a computer algorithm to analyze what metaphors are used in speeches given by the candidates running for nomination to be President in the 2016 election cycle. First, an algorithm was devised to find the political metaphors identified by Lakoff in the candidates' speeches. The algorithm was tested on human-identified metaphors and had a substantial improvement over the baseline but still leaves accuracy to be desired. The algorithm was then used on the full set of presidential candidate speeches and results showed that Republicans used Strict Father metaphors more than Democrats as expected, but the difference was slight and the accuracy of the metaphor-identification algorithm may have played a factor.
    [Show full text]