View Item 

Show simple item record

THE ROLE OF LITERAL MEANING IN THE COMPREHENSION OF NON-LITERAL CONSTRUCTIONS

dc.contributor.authorLytinen, Steven L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBurridge, Robert R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKirtner, Jeffrey D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:29:30Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:29:30Z
dc.date.issued1992-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationLytinen, Steven L.; Burridge, Robert R.; Kirtner, Jeffrey D. (1992). "THE ROLE OF LITERAL MEANING IN THE COMPREHENSION OF NON-LITERAL CONSTRUCTIONS." Computational Intelligence 8(3): 416-432. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72630>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0824-7935en_US
dc.identifier.issn1467-8640en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72630
dc.format.extent1280737 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1992 Blackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.subject.otherNatural Language Processingen_US
dc.subject.otherMetaphoren_US
dc.subject.otherMetonymyen_US
dc.subject.otherUnification Graen_US
dc.titleTHE ROLE OF LITERAL MEANING IN THE COMPREHENSION OF NON-LITERAL CONSTRUCTIONSen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelComputer Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelEngineeringen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumArtificial Intelligence Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72630/1/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00373.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00373.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceComputational Intelligenceen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBallim, A., Y. Wilks, and J. Barnden 1991. Belief ascription, metaphor, and intensional identification. Cognitive Science, 15: 133 – 171.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCacciari, C., and P. Tabossi, ( 1988 ). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27: 668 – 683.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarbonell, J. 1982. Metaphor: An inescapable phenomenon in natural language comprehension. In Strategies for Natural Language Processing. Edited by M. Ringle Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. pp. 415 – 434.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFass, D. 1988. An account of coherence, semantic relations, metonymy, and lexical ambiguity resolution. In Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence. Edited by M. Tanenhaus. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerrig, R. 1989. Constraints on theories of metaphor. Cognitive Science, 13: 235 – 241.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibbs, R. 1979. Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2: 1 – 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibbs, R. 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests ? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9: 524 – 533.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibbs, R. 1984. Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, pp. 275 – 304.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGildea, P., and S. Glucksberg 1983. On understanding metaphors: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 pp. 577 – 590.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlucksberg, S., P. Gildea, and H. Bookin 1983. On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors ? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, pp. 577 – 590.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInduryka, B. 1987. Approximate semantic transference: A computational theory of metaphors and analogies. Cognitive Science, 11, pp. 445 – 480.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInhoff, A., S. Lima, and P. Carroll 1984. Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory and Cognition, 12 ( 6 ): 558 – 567.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz, J., and J. Fodor 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39: 170 – 210.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLakoff, G., and M. Johnson 1980. Metaphore we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLangacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin, J. 1990. A computational model of metaphor interpretation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOrtony, A., D. Schallert, R. Reynolds, and S. Antos 1978. Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17: 465 – 477.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePollard, C., and I. Sag 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Menlo Park, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSearle, J. 1978. Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13: 207 – 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShieber, S. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. CSLI, Stanford, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimpson, G. 1984. Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96 ( 2 ): 316 – 340.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmall, S., G. Cottrell, and M. Tanenhaus 1988. Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 645 – 659.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTanenhaus, M., J. Leiman, and M. Seidenberg 1979. Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Vebal Behavior, 18: 427 – 440.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinograd, T. 1987. Language as a cognitive process. Vol. 1: Syntax. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1467-8640.1992.tb00373.x.pdf
Size:
1.221MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.