1.1 [35] [35] : kkuroda/papers/smmc-in-a-nutshell. pdf ac.jp/ kkuroda/papers/ reply-to-nabes

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1.1 [35] [35] : kkuroda/papers/smmc-in-a-nutshell. pdf ac.jp/ kkuroda/papers/ reply-to-nabes"

ただきよささおか
5 years ago
Views:

1 FrameNet 1 ( (crossdomain mapping theory) [21, 22] (blending theory) [5]) [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] (super-schematization) S, T S, T ( ) S, T U S, T U S, T S, T 4.1 : (1) FrameNet [9, 10, 11, 12] : a. b. c. d. e. (IS-A ) f. : (2) a. b. () () ( ()) ( ) ( ) ( ) c. 1

2 1.1 [35] [35] : kkuroda/papers/smmc-in-a-nutshell. pdf ac.jp/ kkuroda/papers/ reply-to-nabeshima-07-paper.pdf ac.jp/ kkuroda/papers/ kuroda-et-al-cogsci-07-paper.pdf 2 (metaphor) Aristotle 2.1 Lakoff and Johnson [23] (similarity) ( Ortony (Ed.) [29] ) (similarity-based theories) Lakoff & Johson [23] (conceptual domain) (mapping) 1) ( ) (source domain) S ( ) (target domain) T ( ) (metaphorical mapping) DOMAIN T IS (A KIND OF) DOMAIN S (3)-(5) (3) AN ARGUMENT IS WAR a. Your claim is indefensible. b. I ve never won an argument with him. (4) LOVE IS A JOURNEY a. This relationship is a dead-end street. b. We re just spinning our wheels. (5) THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS a. We need to construct a strong argument for that. b. Is that the foundation for your theory? (mapping-based theories) 1 (4) Domain: TRAVEL Domain: LOVE travelers:... f lovers:... destinations:... f goals:... vehicle:... f relationship itself: Metaphorical mapping from TRAVEL domain to LOVE domain ) Lakoff [20] (idealized cognitive model: ICM) (domain) 2

3 2) Fauconnier and Turner [5] Fauconnier [4] (mental space theory) [3] ( ) (blending theory) 2 Space: TRAVEL travelers:... destinations:... vehicle: Space: GENERIC concept1:... concept2:... concept3: f f Space: BLEND travelers-lovers:... destinations-goals:... vehicle-relationship: f Space: LOVE lovers:... goals:... relationship itself: Blending of TRAVEL and LOVE spaces=domains into blend space=domain, based on the latent similiarity in the generic space=domain Lakoff-Johnson (spaces) ( 3) ) (input spaces) (blended space) 2) Lakoff [21] (invariance hypothesis) Lakoff and Johnson [24] (invariance principle) 3) (commality) (generic space) Lakoff and Johnson [23] (6) a. 1: b. 2: ) 4). 3

4 (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)?* (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (7)-(11) (13)-(16) ( ) (17) 3.2 (7)-(17) (Hilbert) { a: ; b: ; c: } ; 1: a b, c? b 0, c 10, b, c 5 2: b a, c? a 0, c 10, a, c 5 3: c a, b? a 0, b 10, a, b 5 ab : ac, ab : bc, ac : cb 3 α : β, γ : δ, ε : η d(a, b) : d(b, c) : d(a, c) = ε + η : α +β : γ : δ 3 b η c α ε a a γ β b a, b, c (super-schematization δ c 4

5 model) 5)6) LOVE IS A JOURNEY 4 ( TRAVEL S LOVE T S ABSTRACTED-TRAVEL U ) H G Frame: TRAVEL travelers:... destinations:... Frame: ABSTRATED-TRAVEL abstracted-travelers:... abstracted-destinations:... abstracted-vehicle: g g g h f lovers:... goals:... vehicle:... f relationship itself: f h h Frame: LOVE G ( ) S ( ICM) U (abstract) ( ) (generalize) (super-schematization) H U 5) Rudzka-Ostyn [30] Lakoff [21] [33, pp ] Rudzka-Ostyn [30] (abstraction) Rudzka-Ostyn Gentner [13] (analogy) (structural mapping model) [34] (quasiabstraction), : Lakoff-Johnson 6) () [36] H S, T (instantiate) (elaborate) T S U S, T U G (conventionalization) U U F Lakoff and Johnson F F, G S 1 = TRAVEL, S 2 = ABSTRACTED-TRAVEL T F = G H S 2 (= ABSTRACTED-TRAVELERS) G Lakoff-Johnson S 1 (= TRAVELERS) () H Grady [16] LOVE (e.g., LOVERS) JOURNEY (e.g., TRAVELERS) ABSTRACTED-TRAVEL (e.g., ABSTRACTED-TRAVELERS) H Grady 5

6 H : U T G : S U G S U (selective) (partial) () (neutralization) S 1 [+F] S 2 [ F] S 1 S 2 S [±F] (selectivity) (partiality) (18) a.?? b.?? c.?? WAR, JOURNEY, BUILDINGS ( /) 4.2 (19) a. F G, H b. G G Lakoff [21]? (category-formation) (self-organization) 6

7 ([16, 15] ) CMT/MMT Invariance Principle (Target Domain Override ) [1, 2] Move α A, B, C Case Filter 1 (emergent) 4.2.2? 7) love is a journey ABSTRACTED-TRAVELERS TRAVELERS? ABSTRACTED-X? Grady [16] (primary metaphors) Lakoff-Johnson F H LOVE ABSTRACTED-LOVE ( ABSTRACTED-TRAVEL ) 7) {,,,,,... } [36] 7

8 1 MMT P&P MM Theory of Metaphor P&P Theory of Syntax General rules Metaphorical mappings Move α or Generators General constraints Invariance Hypothesis Binding Principles, or Filters with Target Domain Overrides Case Filter, etc 4.3 (20) a. (i.e., TRAVEL, LOVE ) b. ( ) c. ( ) (20a) ( ) I 1,I 2 I 1 ( I 2 ) (20b, 20c) s (e.g., ) ( ) ( s ) 4.4 8

9 Langacker [25, 26] (Cognitive Grammar) (network model) Langacker [27, pp ] Langacker 4.5 FrameNet (= ) Super-schema S Schema S i i Prototypes d Peripherals d Extensions 5 Langacker s Network Model (=) S (Prototypes) (Peripherals) Prototypes Peripherals ( d ) S S (extensions) S S S d (metaphorical extensions) Shindo, et al. [31] x, y d(x, y) (21) a. x, y d(x, y) = 0 b. d(x, y) = x, y (5) ([20]) 9

10 4.5 FrameNet 5 : (i) ; (ii) 8) (ii) Langacker Fillmore [7, 8, 9, 10] () (semantic) frames (semantic fields) 9) 4.6 (7)-(16) 6 FrameNet 10) [11, 12] FrameNet (Japanese FrameNet 11) ) [28] FrameNet 8 (22) a. [37] {,,,, } 12) TEA [32] KWIC b. (1) (2) (2) (4) (Level 1, 2) 13) c. b ) Level 2, 3 8) He is a tiger tiger Langacker [27, p. 43, Fig. 13] [PERSON RESEMBLING TIGER] [PERSON RESEMBLING TIGER] (markerese) 4 ( ) 9) (ontology) [39] 10) framenet/ 11) jp/jfn/index.html 12) Berkeley FrameNet 13) Berkeley FrameNet WordNet [6] 14) 7 10

Upper Nodes of the Frame Network of "OSOU" Kow Kuroda 01/09/2004 5 features neutralized [1] +/ human, +/ animate [2] +/ intentional, +/ concrete [3] +/ human, +animate [3]: Implicit Experiencer 5

11 Upper Nodes of the Frame Network of "OSOU" Kow Kuroda 01/09/ features neutralized [1] +/ human, +/ animate [2] +/ intentional, +/ concrete [3] +/ human, +animate [3]: Implicit Experiencer 5 features neutralized = partially schematized [1] +/ human, +animate [2] +intentional, +concrete [3] +/ human, +animate [1][3] 2 features neutralized = partially schematized [1] human, +/ animate [2] +/ intentional,+/ concrete [3] +/ human, +animate [1][3] [1] human, animate [2] intentional, +/ concrete [3] +human, +animate [1][3] [1] +human, +animate [2] +intentional, +concrete [3] +human, +animate [1][3] human, +animate [2] +intentional, +concrete [3] +/ human, +animate [1][3] [1] human, animate [2] intentional, +concrete [3] +human, +animate [1][3] [1] human, animate [2] intentional, concrete [3] +human, +animate [1][3] 0 features neutralized = fully elaborated 6 7 [±human, ±animate], [±concrete, ±animate], [±animate] [+animate] (implied = implicit experiencer) 15) B 15) 6 Goldberg [14] (constructions) [14, p. 38, p. 109] 6 11

12 5?? : () (distributed representation) Hopfield Net (pattern completion) Lakoff and Johnson [23] 16) 5.1 Lakoff and Johson [23, pp. 5-6] : (23)... ARGUMENT IS WAR 16) ( ) Lakoff-Johnson Lakoff and Johson [23, p. 7] : (thought processes) 12

13 8 () ARGUMENT IS WAR 17) ARGUMENT IS A DANCE ( ) Lakoff and Johnson 17) ARGUMENT IS WAR Lakoff and Johson (24) (A) : 13

14 (25) (B) : Lakoff-Johnson (B) (= ) (B) (A) Fauconnier and Turner [5] Generic Space Lakoff and Johnson [23, p. 8] : (26) Grady [16] Grady [17] Johnson [19, 18] Conflation Theory (correlational) () 18) 5.2 : (i) ( ) ; (ii) (usagebasedness) : (27) a. b. 19) ( ) c. ( ) 18) ( ) 19) FrameNet Berkeley FrameNet (implementation) 14

15 Lakoff and Johnson [23, p. 94] : (28) Berkeley FrameNet 6 20) : ( ) 80 20) (e.g., [38]) 15

16 (linguistic resources) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 30 () 21) // 30 fmri 21) FrameNet [1] N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Mouton de Gruyter, [2] N. Chomsky. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, [3] G. R. Fauconnier. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [4] G. R. Fauconnier. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, [5] G. R. Fauconnier and M. Turner. Conceptual projections and middle spaces. Cognitive Science Technical Report (TR-9401), Cognitive Science Department, UCSD, [6] C. Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, [7] C. J. Fillmore. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, editor, Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pages Hanshin Publishing, Seoul, [8] C. J. Fillmore. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2): , [9] C. J. Fillmore and B. T. S. Atkins. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampoli, editors, Compuational Approaches to the Lexicon, pages Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, [10] C. J. Fillmore and B. T. S. Atkins. FrameNet and lexicographic relevance. In The First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), [11] C. J. Fillmore, C. Wooters, and C. F. Baker. Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Hong Kong [12] T. Fontenelle, editor. FrameNet and Frame Semantics. Oxford University Press, A Special Issue of International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3). [13] D. Gentner. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7: , [14] A. D. Goldberg. Constructions: A Construction 16

17 Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, [15] J. Grady. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, [16] J. Grady. Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4): , [17] J. Grady. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs and G. J. Steen, editors, Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, [18] C. R. Johnson. Learnability in the acquisition of multiple senses: SOURCE reconsidered. In J. Moxley, J. Juge, and M. Juge, editors, BLS 22. Berkeley Linguistics Society, [19] C. R. Johnson. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE. In M. K. Hirage, Chris Sinha, and Sherman Wilcox, editors, Cultural, Typological and Psychological Issues in Cognitive Linguisitcs. John Benjamins, [20] G. Lakoff. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press, [: ( )..]. [21] G. Lakoff. The invariance hypothesis: Is the abstract reasoning based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1):39 74, [: :? (). In ( ),, :.]. [22] G. Lakoff. Contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Orthony, editor, Metaphor and Thought, pages Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, [23] G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, [: ( )..]. [24] G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. The Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books, [25] R. W. Langacker. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, [26] R. W. Langacker. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford University Press, [27] R. W. Langacker. Grammar and Conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, [28] K. H. Ohara, S. Fujii, H. Sato, S. Ishizaki, T. Ohori, and R. Suzuki. The Japanese FrameNet project: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of PACLING 03, pages , [29] A. Ortony, editor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, [30] B. Rudzka-Östyn. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Östyn, A.-M. Simon-Vanderbergen, and J. Vanparys, editors, By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective, pages John Benjamins, [31] M. Shindo, M. Murata, and H. Isahara. A corpusbased study of semantic extensions of sensory adjectives: From synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (CSDL-04). Edmonton, Canada, [32] M. Utiyama and H. Isahara. Tools for exploring natural language. In NLPRS-2001, pages , [33]. :., [34].. :, [35]. :. In, editor,, pages ,, [36].., 33(7):887 96, [37] and.., 10(4): , [38]. :. :, [39].., 14(6):45 56 [ ],

1 ( ) (1) (2) Pattern 1 (P1)// Pattern 2 (P2) (V1 = V2) (alternation) (SPRAY-PAINT alternation/ hypallage) (1) (2) P1: (Z ) X Y V1 P2: (Z ) X Y

1 ( ) (1) (2) Pattern 1 (P1)// Pattern 2 (P2) (V1 = V2) (alternation) (SPRAY-PAINT alternation/ hypallage) (1) (2) P1: (Z ) X Y V1 P2: (Z ) X Y 1 ( ) 1 1.1 (1) (2) Pattern 1 (P1)// Pattern 2 (P2) (V1 = V2) (alternation) (SPRAY-PAINT alternation/ hypallage) (1) (2) P1: (Z ) X Y V1 P2: (Z ) X Y V2 1.1.1 : (1) P2 (3) : (3) [ X [ X [ X ] ] ] [ Y ]