Abstract
The integration of language and vision capabilities in computers can be seen purely as a multi-media task without any theoretical assumptions being required. However, it is worth exploring whether the modalities have anything serious in common, in particular in the light of claim that most non-technical language use is metaphorical. What consequences would that have for the underlying relationship of language and vision: is it possible that vision is largely metaphorical?
The conclusion (see also, Wilks 1978b and Wilks and Okada (in press) is that visual processing can embody structural ambiguity (whether compositional or not), but not anything analogous to metaphor. Metaphor is essentially connected with the extension of sense and only symbols can have senses. But if it makes no sense to say a figure can be metaphorical (unless it embodies symbolic elements) that must also mean, alas, that it makes no sense to say it is literally anything either. Only a symbol can be literally something. A hat is a hat is a hat, but never, ever literally so.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, J. (1971). The Grammar of Case. Cambridge U.P.: Cambridge.
Arens, Y. (1981). Using Language and Context in the Analysis of Text. In Proceedings of Internat. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Tbilisi. 1121–1129.
Colby, K. (1973). The Simulation of Belief Systems. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.) Computer Models of Thought and Language, 251–286. W.H. Freeman: San Francisco.
Church, K. & Hanks, P. (1989). Word Association Norms, Mutual Information and Lexicography. In Proceedings of The 27th Meeting of ACM, 45–51. Vancouver, BC.
Clowes, M. (1972). Scene Analysis and Picture Grammars. In Nake, K. & Rosenfeld, A. (eds.) Graphic Languages, 107–127. N. Holland: Amsterdam.
Dailey, D. P. (1986). The Extraction of a Minimum Set of Semantic Primitives from a Monolingual Dictionary is NP-Complete. Computational Linguistics 12(4): 306–307.
Fass, D. (1986). Collative Semantics. In Proceedings of The Internat. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, 341–343.
Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes and Frames Semantics. In Zampolli, A. (ed.) Linguistic Structures Processing. N. Holland: Amsterdam.
Gazdar, G. (1990). An Introduction to DATR. In Evans, R. & Gazdar, G. (eds.) The DATR Papers. Cognitive Science Research Papers CSRP 139, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.
Gregory, R. (1970). The Grammar of Vision. The Listener, BBC: London.
Guo, C. M. (1994). Machine Tractable Dictionaries, Ablex: Norwood, NJ.
Guthrie, L., Slator, B., Wilks, Y. & Bruce, R. (1990). Is There Content in Empty Heads? In Proceedings of The Internat. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, 236–240. Helsinki, Finland.
Hanks, P. (1986). Typicality and Meaning Potentials. In Proceedings of The European Conf. on Lexicography, 213–223. Zurich, Switzerland.
Hornby, A. (1963). The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of English. O.U.P.: Oxford.
Jackendoff, R. (1975). A System of Semantic Primitives. In Schank & Nash-Webber (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 112–117. BBN: Cambridge, MA.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1984). Semantic Primitives or Meaning Postulates: Mental Models of Propositional Representations. In Bara, B. & Guida, G. (eds.), Computational Models of Natural Language Processing, 227–246. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Katz, J. & Fodor, J. (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language; pp. 334–349.
Katz, J. (1972). Semantic Theory. Harper & Row: New York.
Kay, M. (1989). The Concrete Lexicon and the Abstract Dictionary. In Proceeding of The Fifth Annual Conference of UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 54–64. Oxford,England.
Martin, J. (1990). A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Academic Press: New York.
Michotte, A. (1954). La perception de la causalite. Studia Psychologica: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.
Minsky, M. (1975). Frame Systems. In Schank & Nash-Webber (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 89–94. BBN: Cambridge, MA.
Newell, A. (1973). Artificial Intelligence and the Concept of Mind. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.) Computer Models of Thought and Language, 1–60. Freeman: San Francisco.
Procter, P. (1978). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Longman: London.
Pustejovsky, J. & Bergler, S. (1987). The Acquisition of Conceptual Structure for the Lexicon. In Proceedings of The Amer. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 566–576.
Rieger, C. (1976). Computers and Thought Lecture at IJCAI4. Artificial Intelligence, 88–98.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Hutchinson: London.
Schank, R. (1973). Identification of Conceptualizations underlying Natural Language. In Schank, R. & Colby, K. (eds.) Computer Models of Thought and Language, 187–248. Freeman: San Francisco.
Searle, J. (1979). Literal Meaning. In Expression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Simon, H. (1969). The Architecture of Complexity. In The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1987) Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language. Collins: London.
Tooke, H. (1769). The Diversions of Pur ley. London.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilensky, R. (1987). Some Complexities of Goal Analysis. In Proceedings of The Third Conf. on Theoret. Issues in Language Processing, 97–99.
Wilks, Y. (1972). Grammar, Meaning and The Machine Analysis of Language. Routledge: London & Boston, MA.
Wilks, Y. (1975). Preference Semantics’. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 78–88. Cambridge U.P.: Cambridge.
Wilks, Y. (1975a). An Intelligent Analyzer and Understander of Natural Language. Comm. A.C.M., 112–119.
Wilks, Y. (1975b). A Preferential, Pattern-Matching Semantics for Natural Language. Artificial Intelligence, 76–88.
Wilks, Y. (1977). Good and Bad Arguments for Semantic Primitives. Communication and Cognition, 187–197.
Wilks, Y. (1978). Making Preferences More Active. Artificial Intelligence 11: 243–263.
Wilks, Y. (1978). Semantic Primitives in Language and Vision. In Proceedings of The Second Conf. on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Champaign-Urbana, IL, 67–72.
Wilks, Y., Fass, D., Guo, C-M., McDonald, J., Plate, T. & Slator, B. (1990). Providing Machine Tractable Dictionary Tools. Journal of Machine Translation 5(2): 99–151.
Wilks, Y. & Fass, D. (1992). The Preference Semantics Family. Comput. Math. Applic. 23: 99–117.
Wilks, Y., Slator, B. & Guthrie, L. (in press). Electric Words. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilks, Y. & Okada, N. (eds.). (in press) Computer Language and Vision Across the Pacific. Ablex: Norwood, NJ.
Wittengstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilks, Y. (1995). Language, Vision and Metaphor. In: Mc Kevitt, P. (eds) Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1639-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1639-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-3944-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-1639-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive