It's not Rocket Science : Interpreting Figurative Language in Narratives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00087v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:46:35 GMT
• Title: It's not Rocket Science : Interpreting Figurative Language in Narratives
• Authors: Tuhin Chakrabarty, Yejin Choi, Vered Shwartz
• Abstract summary: We study the interpretation of two non-compositional figurative languages (idioms and similes) Our experiments show that models based solely on pre-trained language models perform substantially worse than humans on these tasks. We additionally propose knowledge-enhanced models, adopting human strategies for interpreting figurative language.
• Score: 48.84507467131819
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Figurative language is ubiquitous in English. Yet, the vast majority of NLP research focuses on literal language. Existing text representations by design rely on compositionality, while figurative language is often non-compositional. In this paper, we study the interpretation of two non-compositional figurative languages (idioms and similes). We collected datasets of fictional narratives containing a figurative expression along with crowd-sourced plausible and implausible continuations relying on the correct interpretation of the expression. We then trained models to choose or generate the plausible continuation. Our experiments show that models based solely on pre-trained language models perform substantially worse than humans on these tasks. We additionally propose knowledge-enhanced models, adopting human strategies for interpreting figurative language: inferring meaning from the context and relying on the constituent word's literal meanings. The knowledge-enhanced models improve the performance on both the discriminative and generative tasks, further bridging the gap from human performance.

Related papers

• Meta4XNLI: A Crosslingual Parallel Corpus for Metaphor Detection and Interpretation [6.0158981171030685]
  We present a novel parallel dataset for the tasks of metaphor detection and interpretation that contains metaphor annotations in both Spanish and English. We investigate language models' metaphor identification and understanding abilities through a series of monolingual and cross-lingual experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T14:44:48Z)
• That was the last straw, we need more: Are Translation Systems Sensitive to Disambiguating Context? [64.38544995251642]
  We study semantic ambiguities that exist in the source (English in this work) itself. We focus on idioms that are open to both literal and figurative interpretations. We find that current MT models consistently translate English idioms literally, even when the context suggests a figurative interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T06:38:49Z)
• Multi-lingual and Multi-cultural Figurative Language Understanding [69.47641938200817]
  Figurative language permeates human communication, but is relatively understudied in NLP. We create a dataset for seven diverse languages associated with a variety of cultures: Hindi, Indonesian, Javanese, Kannada, Sundanese, Swahili and Yoruba. Our dataset reveals that each language relies on cultural and regional concepts for figurative expressions, with the highest overlap between languages originating from the same region. All languages exhibit a significant deficiency compared to English, with variations in performance reflecting the availability of pre-training and fine-tuning data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T15:30:31Z)
• LMs stand their Ground: Investigating the Effect of Embodiment in Figurative Language Interpretation by Language Models [0.0]
  Figurative language is a challenge for language models since its interpretation deviates from their conventional order and meaning. Yet, humans can easily understand and interpret metaphors as they can be derived from embodied metaphors. This study shows how larger language models perform better at interpreting metaphoric sentences when the action of the metaphorical sentence is more embodied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T11:44:12Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• Are Representations Built from the Ground Up? An Empirical Examination of Local Composition in Language Models [91.3755431537592]
  Representing compositional and non-compositional phrases is critical for language understanding. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-07T14:21:30Z)
• What Drives the Use of Metaphorical Language? Negative Insights from Abstractness, Affect, Discourse Coherence and Contextualized Word Representations [13.622570558506265]
  Given a specific discourse, which discourse properties trigger the use of metaphorical language, rather than using literal alternatives? Many NLP approaches to metaphorical language rely on cognitive and (psycho-)linguistic insights and have successfully defined models of discourse coherence, abstractness and affect. In this work, we build five simple models relying on established cognitive and linguistic properties to predict the use of a metaphorical vs. synonymous literal expression in context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:08:53Z)
• Testing the Ability of Language Models to Interpret Figurative Language [69.59943454934799]
  Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse. It remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. We introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T23:42:22Z)
• Investigating Robustness of Dialog Models to Popular Figurative Language Constructs [30.841109045790862]
  We analyze the performance of existing dialog models in situations where the input dialog context exhibits use of figurative language. We propose lightweight solutions to help existing models become more robust to figurative language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-01T23:55:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.