Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language

Abstract

Since the 1970s, more and more scholars have approached metaphor from a cognitive perspective. While stressing their conceptual nature, these researchers, in one way or another, neglect other aspects of metaphors. In recent years, many researchers investigating metaphor have started to adopt a discourse-based method, emphasizing the essential role of social and conversational context in processing, interpreting, recognizing, and appreciating metaphors. However, so far few have built a model which gives due attention to the workings of metaphoric language. Aiming to fill this gap, Karen Sullivan 'integrates insights from Construction Grammar with those of Cognitive Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Frame semantics, bringing these together into a new account of metaphoric language' (4).

Censoring metaphors in translation: Shakespeare's Hamlet under Franco

“…The distinction between metaphor and simile, albeit significant in other respects (Glucksberg and Keysar 1990;Chiappe and Kennedy 2001;Sullivan 2013) did not seem relevant for the current study. The presence or absence of como 'like', for example, does not affect whether the source or target domains of a metaphor are preserved in a translation.…”

“…In all other respects, Pemán's translation is sensu stricto. According to many metaphor theorists (Lakoff and Johnson 1980;Lakoff and Turner 1989;Glucksberg and Keysar 1990;Moder 2008;Sullivan 2013), metaphors and similes involve the same source domains, target domains, and underlying conceptual metaphors. Replacing a metaphor with a simile does not remove any Brought to you by | University of Queensland -UQ Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/21/15 4:11 AM material that could be problematic for the censor review.…”

Computationally Constructed Concepts: A Machine Learning Approach to Metaphor Interpretation Using Usage-Based Construction Grammatical Cues

“…

AbstractThe current study seeks to implement a deep learning classification algorithm using argument-structure level representation of metaphoric constructions, for the identification of source domain mappings in metaphoric utterances.It thus builds on previous work in computational metaphor interpretation (Mohler et al 2014;Shutova 2010;Bollegala & Shutova 2013;Hong 2016;Su et al 2017) while implementing a theoretical framework based off of work in the interface of metaphor and construction grammar (Sullivan 2006(Sullivan , 2007(Sullivan , 2013. The results indicate that it is possible to achieve an accuracy of approximately 80.4% using the proposed method, combining construction grammatical features with a simple deep learning NN.

…”

“…Sullivan (2013) explains that the backbone of metaphoric utterances is the relationship of the target domain referent to the frame evoked by the construction. Additionally, Goldberg (2006) describes the semantic meaning of constructions as arising from both the nouns contained in their argument-structure, and the meaning implied by the construction's syntactic template.…”

“…Karen Sullivan, for example, has done considerable work on both how syntactic structures (i.e. constructions) restrict the interpretation of metaphoric utterances in predictable ways by both instantiating a semantic frame and mapping the target domain referent to a semantic role within the instantiated frame (Sullivan 2006(Sullivan , 2009(Sullivan , 2013. Notable examples of computational implementations of Sullivan's theories include Stickles et al (2016) and Dodge et al (2015), who have compiled a database of metaphoric frames-MetaNet-organized into an ontology of source domains for researchers to use in analyzing metaphoric utterances, similar to FrameNet.…”