Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:53:56.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data fusion and abductive inference for metaphor resolution: a bridging discussion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2016

Giovanni Ferrin Open the ORCID record for Giovanni Ferrin [Opens in a new window] ,
Lauro Snidaro Open the ORCID record for Lauro Snidaro [Opens in a new window]  and
Gian Luca Foresti Open the ORCID record for Gian Luca Foresti [Opens in a new window]
Giovanni Ferrin
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Lauro Snidaro
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Gian Luca Foresti
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the 1980s, metaphor has been recognized as a pervasively diffused phenomenon in communication, absolutely not restricted to rhetoric and linguistic phenomena, involving structured concepts, relations, and matching ‘rules’. Metaphor resolution, that is metaphor understanding, as well as metaphor creation, has become an issue in automated processing and understanding of natural language as well as of mixed visual communication. It can be showed as a process of structure finding and mapping procedure between conceptual denotation–connotation structures necessary for interpretation. Creative abduction is then showed to be the pattern inference required to work out structure-mappings in corresponding nodes as present in metaphors. In this paper, we review some key issues (definitions, typologies, theoretical problems) involving the concept of ‘metaphor’ and survey some definitions and concepts emerging in contemporary debate on abductive inference. Finally, we argue that metaphor understanding process can be recognized as a fusion tractable problem, allowing the exploitation of frameworks and algorithms of such domain.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 261 - 277
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aliseda, A. 2006. Abductive Reasoning. Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation (Synthese Library), Springer.Google Scholar
Aristotle, 1995. Poetics. William Heinemann Ltd.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. 2008. Metaphor and artificial intelligence: why they matter to each other. In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, 311–338.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. & Lee, M. G. 1999. An implemented context system that combines belief reasoning, metaphor-based reasoning and uncertainty handling. In Proceedings of the Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, CONTEXT ‘99, 28–41. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4), 577–660.Google Scholar
Bharathan, V. & Josephson, J. R. 2006. An abductive framework for level one information fusion. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1–7.Google Scholar
Burch, R. W. 2000. Semeiotic data fusion. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Fusion, 2, 67–73.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. & Deignan, A. 2006. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fass, D. 1997. Processing Metaphor and Metonymy. Ablex.Google Scholar
Ferrin, G., Snidaro, L., Canazza, S. & Foresti, G. 2008. Soft data issues in fusion of video surveillance. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1882–1889.Google Scholar
Ferrin, G., Snidaro, L. & Foresti, G. 2009. Structuring relations for fusion in intelligence. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1621–1626.Google Scholar
Ferrin, G., Snidaro, L. & Foresti, G. L. 2011. Contexts, co-texts and situations in fusion domain. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1–6. IEEE.Google Scholar
Ferrin, G., Snidaro, L. & Foresti, G. L. 2015. Artifact ‘metaphors’: gaining capability using ‘wrong’ tools. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1176–1181.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1999. Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction Versus the Richness of Being. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Flach, P. A. & Kakas, A. C. (eds) 2000. Abduction and Induction: Essays on their Relation and Integration. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 1994. Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge (Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2000. Compasses, beauty queens and other PCs: pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 24, 31–55.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2002. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2005. A course in pictorial and multimodal metaphor, Semiotics Institute. http://semioticon.com/sio/courses/pictorial-multimodal-metaphor.Google Scholar
Gabbay, D. M. & Woods, J. 2005. A Practical Logic of Cognitive Systems, Volume 2: The Reach of Abduction: Insight and Trial. Elsevier Science Inc.Google Scholar
Gargett, A. & Barnden, J. 2015. Gen-Meta: generating metaphors by combining AI and corpus-based modeling. Web Intelligence 13, 103–114.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1988. Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Development 59, 47–59.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. H. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review 74(1), 88–95.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1998. What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society 34, 503–533.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan, or, the Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Andrew Crooke.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. & Martin, P. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63, 69–142.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J. & Thagard, P. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 2007. A treatise of human nature. Norton, D.F. & Norton, M.J. (eds). Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Josephson, J. R. 2008. Abductive inferencing for integrating information from human and robotic sources. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, 109–114.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. B. 2008. The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(31), 10687–10692.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liggins, M. E., Hall, D. L. & Llinas, J. (eds) 2008. Handbook of Multisensor data fusion: theory and practice, The electrical engineering & applied signal processing series, second edn. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Llinas, J., Bowman, C., Rogova, G., Steinberg, A., Waltz, E. & White, F. 2004. Revisiting the JDL data fusion model II. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1218–1230.Google Scholar
Magnani, L. 2001. Abduction, Reason and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation. Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Magnani, L. 2009. Abductive Cognition—The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning, Cognitive Systems Monographs 3. Springer.Google Scholar
Magnani, L. 2013. Is abduction ignorance-preserving? Conventions, models and fictions in science. Logic Journal of the IGPL 21(6), 882–914.Google Scholar
Magnani, L. 2015. The eco-cognitive model of abduction. Journal of Applied Logic 13(3), 285–315.Google Scholar
Martin, J. H. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Academic Press Professional, Inc.Google Scholar
Martin, J. H. 2000. Representing UNIX domain metaphors. Artificial Intelligence Review 14, 377–401.Google Scholar
McAllister, J. W. 2013. Reasoning with visual metaphors. Knowledge Engineering Review 28(3), 367–379.Google Scholar
Möller, R. & Neumann, B. 2008. Ontology-based reasoning techniques for multimedia interpretation and retrieval. In Semantic Multimedia and Ontologies: Theory and Applications, Kompatsiaris Y. & Hobson P. (eds). Springer, 55–98.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. 1999. Moving right along: a computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 121–128. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66, 436–451.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1982–. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological edition 1. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group, T. 2007. MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. 2008. Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164(2), 201–234.Google Scholar
Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snidaro, L., Garcia, J. & Llinas, J. 2015. Context-based information fusion: a survey and discussion. Information Fusion 25, 16–31.Google Scholar
Snidaro, L., Visentini, I. & Foresti, G. 2011. Data Fusion in Modern Surveillance (chapter 1), Studies in Computational Intelligence 336, 1–21. Springer.Google Scholar
Steinberg, A., Bowman, C. & White, F. 2004. Rethinking the JDL data fusion model. In Proceedings of NSSDF. JHUAPL.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J., Griffiths, T. & Kemp, C. 2006. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7), 309–318.Google Scholar
Van der Sandt, R. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4), 333–377.Google Scholar
Veale, T. 1998. ‘Just in time’ analogical mapping, an iterative-deepening approach to structure-mapping. In Proceedings of ECAI98, the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Veale, T. 2014. A service-oriented architecture for metaphor processing. In ACL 2014, 52.Google Scholar
Veale, T. & Keane, M. T. 1997. The competence of sub-optimal structure mapping on hard analogies. In The Proceedings of IJCAI’97, the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar