@inproceedings{piccirilli-schulte-im-walde-2022-drives,
title = "What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations",
author = "Piccirilli, Prisca and
Schulte Im Walde, Sabine",
editor = "Nastase, Vivi and
Pavlick, Ellie and
Pilehvar, Mohammad Taher and
Camacho-Collados, Jose and
Raganato, Alessandro",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics",
month = jul,
year = "2022",
address = "Seattle, Washington",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2022.starsem-1.26/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2022.starsem-1.26",
pages = "299--310",
abstract = "Given a specific discourse, which discourse properties trigger the use of metaphorical language, rather than using literal alternatives? For example, what drives people to say grasp the meaning rather than understand the meaning within a specific context? Many NLP approaches to metaphorical language rely on cognitive and (psycho-)linguistic insights and have successfully defined models of discourse coherence, abstractness and affect. In this work, we build five simple models relying on established cognitive and linguistic properties ? frequency, abstractness, affect, discourse coherence and contextualized word representations ? to predict the use of a metaphorical vs. synonymous literal expression in context. By comparing the models? outputs to human judgments, our study indicates that our selected properties are not sufficient to systematically explain metaphorical vs. literal language choices."
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="piccirilli-schulte-im-walde-2022-drives">
<titleInfo>
<title>What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Prisca</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Piccirilli</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sabine</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Schulte Im Walde</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2022-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vivi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Nastase</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ellie</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pavlick</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Mohammad</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Taher</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pilehvar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jose</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Camacho-Collados</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Alessandro</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Raganato</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Seattle, Washington</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Given a specific discourse, which discourse properties trigger the use of metaphorical language, rather than using literal alternatives? For example, what drives people to say grasp the meaning rather than understand the meaning within a specific context? Many NLP approaches to metaphorical language rely on cognitive and (psycho-)linguistic insights and have successfully defined models of discourse coherence, abstractness and affect. In this work, we build five simple models relying on established cognitive and linguistic properties ? frequency, abstractness, affect, discourse coherence and contextualized word representations ? to predict the use of a metaphorical vs. synonymous literal expression in context. By comparing the models? outputs to human judgments, our study indicates that our selected properties are not sufficient to systematically explain metaphorical vs. literal language choices.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">piccirilli-schulte-im-walde-2022-drives</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2022.starsem-1.26</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2022.starsem-1.26/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2022-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>299</start>
<end>310</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations
%A Piccirilli, Prisca
%A Schulte Im Walde, Sabine
%Y Nastase, Vivi
%Y Pavlick, Ellie
%Y Pilehvar, Mohammad Taher
%Y Camacho-Collados, Jose
%Y Raganato, Alessandro
%S Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics
%D 2022
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Seattle, Washington
%F piccirilli-schulte-im-walde-2022-drives
%X Given a specific discourse, which discourse properties trigger the use of metaphorical language, rather than using literal alternatives? For example, what drives people to say grasp the meaning rather than understand the meaning within a specific context? Many NLP approaches to metaphorical language rely on cognitive and (psycho-)linguistic insights and have successfully defined models of discourse coherence, abstractness and affect. In this work, we build five simple models relying on established cognitive and linguistic properties ? frequency, abstractness, affect, discourse coherence and contextualized word representations ? to predict the use of a metaphorical vs. synonymous literal expression in context. By comparing the models? outputs to human judgments, our study indicates that our selected properties are not sufficient to systematically explain metaphorical vs. literal language choices.
%R 10.18653/v1/2022.starsem-1.26
%U https://aclanthology.org/2022.starsem-1.26/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.starsem-1.26
%P 299-310
Markdown (Informal)
[What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations](https://aclanthology.org/2022.starsem-1.26/) (Piccirilli & Schulte Im Walde, *SEM 2022)
ACL