<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W03-1405">
  <Title>Conceptual Metaphors: Ontology-based representation and corpora driven Mapping Principles</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 SUMO
SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology -
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> http://ontology.teknowledge.com) is a shared upper ontology developed by the IEEE sanctioned IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group. It is a theory in first-order logic that consists of approximately one thousand concepts and 4000 axioms. Its purpose is to be a shared and inter-operable upper ontology (Niles and Pease 2001, Pease and Niles 2002, Sevcenko 2003) Since ontologies are formalized descriptions of the structure of knowledge bases, SUMO can also be viewed as a proposed representation of shared human knowledge, and thus a good candidate for mapping information about the source domain to the target domain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> What we will look at below is whether the SUMO conceptual terms and inferences are candidates for knowledge representation in the source domain. In order to analyze this, we first need to extract from a corpora the linguistic terms that are used for mappings between a source and a target domain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The application of SUMO in NLP and in processing of lexical meaning is facilitated by its interface with WordNet. The SUMO interface allows users to search and map each English lexical meaning defined in WordNet to a concept node on the SUMO ontology. Similarly, one can also search for a Chinese lexical meaning and map it to a SUMO concept node through a Chinese-English bilingual translation equivalents database (http://ckip.iis.sinica.edu.tw/CKIP/ontology/).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Corpora Data
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In order to test the feasibility of using SUMO to aid the analysis of Mapping Principles within the framework of the CM Model, we searched the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus, a tagged corpus of over 5 million words of modern Mandarin usage in Taiwan (available on the Internet: http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/). The maximum number of responses (i.e. 2000) was obtained for the word 'jingji' (economy) in Mandarin Chinese. Each of these 2000 was examined and all metaphorical instances were marked. (A metaphorical instance is defined as when an abstract concept such as 'economy' is discussed in terms of a concrete concept, such as 'building' .) All instances of concrete concepts were then grouped into source domains. All source-target domain pairings that had more than 20 instances were then examined. In Tables 1-4 below we show the source domains that were found for jingji 'economy' and we give the total number of instances and the number of tokens for each metaphor, as well as a proposed mapping principle based. Also note that the following mappings were manually analyzed and classified.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We first note that the EP (empirical prototype) hypothesis holds up since in all source-target domain pairings except for in ECONOMY IS WAR in Table 4. In the remaining three metaphors, there is one or two lexical items that is/are obviously more frequent than the others.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  Thus, for ECONOMY IS A PERSON, the mapping principle is postulated to have to do with the life cycle of a person (and not, for example, the mental health of a person) because of the frequent occurrence of the lexical item 'chengzhang' (growth).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Table 2: ECONOMY IS A BUILDING (102 instances) null M.P.: Economy is building because buildings involve a (physical) structure and economy involves an (abstract) structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  In the case of ECONOMY IS A BUILDING the mapping principle is postulated to having to do with structure, and not for example, leaky plumbing. This is an interesting case because, as mentioned above, Ahrens (2002) examined IDEA IS A BUILDING and postulated that the mapping principle also had to do with structure (i.e the structure of a building and the structure of ideas). As Ahrens (2002) points out, it is not always the case that different target domains use the same aspect of a source domain. For example, the source domain of FOOD is used differently for IDEAS (to express the notion of digestion and processing) as compared with LOVE which uses FOOD to compare different tastes to different feelings.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Table 3: ECONOMY IS A COMPETITION (40 instances) null M.P.: Economy is competition because a competition involves physical and mental strength to defeat an opponent and an economy requires financial strength in order to prosper against other economies.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  Thus, for ECONOMY IS A COMPETITION, the emphasis is on the strength of participant in order to defeat the opponent.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Table 4: ECONOMY IS WAR (23 instances) M.P.: Economy is war because war involves a violent contest for territorial gain and the economy involves a vigorous contest for financial gain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  stance of a frequent mapping. We suggest that this is because WAR is a subset of the source domain of COMPETITION (i.e. a violent contest) in the SUMO representation, as discussed below.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In short, the corpora data support the CM model' s hypothesis that there is a subset of linguistic expressions within a particular source domain that map to a target domain. It is not the case that 'anything goes' . In fact, the corpora data presented above, suggest an even more restricted view - that there are usually one or two linguistic expressions that frequently map between the source and target domains and 'drive' the motivating relationship between them. In the next section, we look at whether or not the source domain knowledge can be defined a priori through an upper ontology such as SUMO.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Defining Source Domain Knowledge
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> with Shared Upper Ontology The research on Shared Upper Ontology offers a potential answer to the challenge of how to define and verify the structured knowledge in a source domain. A shared upper ontology is designed to represent the shared knowledge structure of intelligent agents and allows knowledge exchange among them. In computational application, it is an infrastructure for knowledge engineering. In cognitive terms, we can view it as a candidate for he description of shared human knowledge. In this paper, we adopt SUMO.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In SUMO, conceptual terms are defined and situated in a tree-taxonomy. In addition, a set of first order inference rules can be attached to each conceptual node to represent the knowledge content encoded on that term. The conceptual terms of SUMO are roughly equivalent to the source domains in MP theory. Hence the well-defined SUMO conceptual terms are candidates for knowledge representation of the source domain in the MP theory of metaphor. In other words, SUMO provides a possible answer the question of how source domain knowledge is represented and how does this knowledge allows the mapping in conceptual metaphors. We examine how this might be possible by looking at two conceptual terms that are represented in SUMO that related to our source</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
domains - CONTEST and ORGANISM.
Economy is Contest
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> First, we found that what we intuitively termed as 'competition' above has a corresponding ontological node of Contest. The term Contest is documented as 'A SocialInteraction where the agent and patient are CognitiveAgents who are trying to defeat one another.' Its only inference rule is  The knowledge inference rule stipulates that each instance of Contest is carried out by two agents, each has his own non-equal purpose. This is exactly the source knowledge needed for the metaphor mapping. When the conceptual metaphor is linguistically realized, lexical expressions are then chosen to represent the conceptual terms of both purposeful agents, and conflicting purposes for the agents. Notice that in contest, as in economy, it is not necessary to have only one winner. There may be multiple winners and perhaps no winners. In other words, the agents' purpose may not be conflicting. But the purposes-for-agent are definitely different for each agent.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> In addition to the 40 instances of economy metaphors involving contest. There are also 23 instances of metaphors involving War. In these cases, it is interesting to observe that the central concept is still the conflicting purposes (one' s gain is another' s loss) of the warring party. This is confirmed by the shared ontology. In SUMO, a War is a kind of ViolentContest, which in term is a kind of Contest.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Contest--ViolentContest--War The term War is defined as 'A military confrontation between two or more Nations or Organizations whose members are Nations.' And the term ViolentContest is defined as 'Contest where one participant attempts to physically injure another participant.' As can be seen from the definition and the metaphoric uses involving War, the ontological source domain knowledge is not involved.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> In fact, when examined more closely, it is clear that when the domain knowledge of War is used, it either further specifies the conflicting purposes by elaborating on the quality and manner of the conflict, or elaborating on the agent participants as combatants. In other words, Economy is War is not a different mapping. It is subsumed under the mapping of Economy is Contest, and added elaborations on the participants.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> By carefully examining the mapping from source domain knowledge based on SUMO, we discovered that not only mapping is indeed based on a priori source domain knowledge. We also discovered that a metaphor can often involve additional and more specified terms within a domain. In these cases, no additional mapping is required.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> The same structured domain knowledge is used, and the subsumed terms offers only elaborations based on the same knowledge structure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> It is appropriate to note here that based on WordNet to SUMO mapping, economy is a SocialInteraction, and Contest is a subclass of SocialInteraction. In other words, economy is a related concept to Contest, although it does not belong to that conceptual domain. That a metaphor chooses a related domain is to be expected.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Economy is Organism Among metaphors involving economies, one source domain stands out as being far removed conceptually. These are the metaphors involving Organism. We arrived at this conclusion by reexamining the examples that we generalized as Economy is a Person in the previous section. After closer examination with the help of SUMO knowledge representation, we found that the linguistic realizations of this mapping do not involve any knowledge that is specific to Human. In fact, it only involves the notion of a life cycle, which is the defining knowledge involving an Organism.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> Organism is defined in SUMO as 'a living individual, including all Plants and Animals.' And the crucial knowledge encoded in of the attached inference rules follows:  The above inference rule encodes the knowledge that 'An organism is the agent of a living process that holds over a duration.' In other words, having a life cycle is the defining knowledge of an Organism. This turns out to be the source domain knowledge that is involved in the mapping.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> It is interesting to observe, though this is not encoded by SUMO, that from a Darwinian perspective, the Purpose of an Organism as an Agent is to prolong his own life cycle. We found that in actual linguistic data, when the above two metaphors are used simultaneously, it is only when improving the life cycle (Economy is Organism) is incorporated as the PurposeForAgent (Economy is Contest). In other words, the source domain knowledge is robust in conceptual metaphor and can be automatically mapped to and merged.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>