<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C02-2021">
  <Title>Reasoning in Metaphor Understanding: The ATT-Meta Approach and System</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Uncertainty
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Although reasoning conflict and uncertainty are intricately involved in metaphor, very few approaches attempt to grapple with the issues.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Propositions and reasoning within both the target and source domains, being largely of common-sense varieties, are typically uncertain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> It can be uncertain what metaphorical views are involved; information transferred from the source domain can conflict with target-domain information; and transfers can even conflict with each other. The ATT-Meta system handles all these types of uncertainty and conflict. Its uncertainty handling is based on fairly crude qualitative uncertainty annotations on rules and propositions, but there is a sophisticated conflict-resolution mechanism.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The uncertainty-handling and conflict-resolution are almost entirely orthogonal to the provisions for metaphor. This leads to clean design and helps to address long-standing issues about metaphor. One such issue is the conflict between information transferred from the source domain and the target information. ATT-Meta allows either side to win, depending on standard specificity principles. This goes against a naive assumption in most of the literature that target information should automatically override transfers. But, this is only convincing when the target information is certain. Indeed, we claim that metaphor is often used precisely to describe an exception to a target-domain default.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>