The mapping unit approach to subcategorization
HLT '91 Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language
Computational Linguistics
met*: a method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer
Computational Linguistics
ACL '88 Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
Multi-site data collection for a spoken language corpus
HLT '91 Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language
IJCAI'87 Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1
Understanding metonymies in discourse
Artificial Intelligence
On the Formal Distinction between Literal and Figurative Language
EPIA '99 Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence
Varying cardinality in metonymic extensions to nouns
COLING '02 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
Syntactic features and word similarity for supervised metonymy resolution
ACL '03 Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
Metonymy resolution as a classification task
EMNLP '02 Proceedings of the ACL-02 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing - Volume 10
SemEval-2007 task 08: metonymy resolution at SemEval-2007
SemEval '07 Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations
SemEval '07 Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations
On the interaction of metonymies and anaphora
IJCAI'97 Proceedings of the Fifteenth international joint conference on Artifical intelligence - Volume 2
Combining collocations, lexical and encyclopedic knowledge for metonymy resolution
EMNLP '09 Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 2 - Volume 2
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
We propose a distinction between two kinds of metonymy: "referential" metonymy, in which the referent of an NP is shifted, and "predicative" metonymy, in which the referent of the NP is unchanged and the argument place of the predicate is shifted instead. Examples are, respectively, "The hamburger is waiting for his check" and "Which airlines fly from Boston to Denver". We also show that complications arise for both types of metonymy when multiple coercing predicates are considered. Finally, we present implemented algorithms handling these complexities that generate both types of metonymic reading, as well as criteria for choosing one type of metonymic reading over another.