Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Discovering Conceptual Metaphors Across Topics and Media Types

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Unsupervised method recovers hidden political metaphors

desk verdict A solid systems paper that overclaims the metaphor recovery; the central claim needs external validation before it lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06652 v1 pith:C6C4XWBP submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CL

Alexandria Leto , Rohan Das , Juan Vásquez , Abram Handler , Maria Leonor Pacheco This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL MSC 68T50
keywords conceptualmetaphordetectionframinganalysisconstrainedclusteringlargelanguagemodelspoliticaldiscourseunsupervisedlearningmedia
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that conceptual metaphors—the unobservable cross-domain mappings that underpin how we frame abstract issues—can be induced automatically from raw text. The method extracts (source verb, target noun) pairs, asks an LLM to spell out the implied framing effects and to label each pair with a target group and an image-schema group, then clusters these interpretations under soft cannot-link constraints that forbid grouping pairs with conflicting labels. Across immigration, gun control, abortion, and podcast corpora, the resulting clusters recover known metaphors, surface new ones, and predict political polarity from cluster membership alone better than unconstrained clustering. If this holds, it gives media analysts a topic- and medium-agnostic tool for discovering the conceptual frames active in a discourse without hand-annotated metaphor data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is structured clustering under soft cannot-link constraints. Each linguistic metaphor is represented by an LLM-generated four-part framing interpretation embedded with Sentence-BERT, plus discrete LLM labels for target group (e.g., 'Immigrants,' 'Politicians') and image-schema group (spatial motion, force, balance, other). The clustering objective augments the distance to each centroid with a weighted penalty whenever a metaphor would be placed in a cluster containing a metaphor with a conflicting target or image-schema label. Because matching labels are weak evidence but conflicting labels are strong evidence against a shared source–target mapping, only cannot-link constraints are used.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on the immigration corpus with the LLM's target-group labels replaced by random labels (preserving the constraint structure); if polarity prediction and cluster purity stay within noise of the reported values, the constraints are not carrying the conceptual metaphor signal. Alternatively, a human annotation study that re-labels a sample of the LLM's 'Anti-Immigration Stance' assignments—showing they often describe the sentence's framing rather than the target noun—would directly falsify the assumption that constraints encode source–target structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that grouping linguistic metaphors by LLM-generated textual interpretations—structured by the four framing effects of problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation—and then applying soft cannot-link constraints based on LLM-assigned target groups and image schemas, yields clusters that correspond to conceptual metaphors. These clusters are treated as evidence for hidden source–target mappings. The paper shows that the constraints improve cluster purity and polarity prediction over vanilla k-means, that human annotators can usually spot an intruder in a cluster, and that the top clusters correspond to recognizable conceptual metaphors, including 'immigration is a natural disaster' and 'immigrants are parasites,' as well as novel ones such as 'gun ownership qualification is entering a building.' On a new podcast corpus, the method surfaces left/right differences: left-leaning shows metaphorically frame media stories and political information as a weapon, while right-leaning shows frame the economy as a vertical system and immigration as an invasion.

Load-bearing premise

The method's entire clustering logic depends on the LLM's discrete target-group and image-schema labels being accurate enough to enforce cannot-link constraints; the paper's own evaluation shows these labels can be noisy, especially target-group assignment on immigration tweets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clusters induced by this method can serve as the unit of media framing analysis, enabling researchers to trace which conceptual metaphors drive partisan discourse without pre-defining metaphor lists.
  • The same pipeline transfers across topics and media types—tweets, news articles, and podcast transcripts—suggesting a general tool for discourse analysis.
  • Cluster membership alone carries enough signal to distinguish left- from right-leaning documents, so conceptual metaphor use can be treated as a measurable feature of political framing.
  • The method's recovery of both well-documented and novel metaphors implies it can extend conceptual metaphor theory to new domains rather than only confirming known mappings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension would be to apply the pipeline to non-political domains (e.g., financial or health discourse) to see whether recovered clusters align with established conceptual metaphors there; the paper's claims would be strengthened if novel metaphors generalize.
  • Because the constraints are only as good as the LLM's discrete labels, an alternative is to soften the constraints further or infer them from the textual interpretations themselves; such an extension would decouple the method from label accuracy.
  • The paper's own error analysis implies that target-group labels are the weakest link; an alternate annotation strategy that prompts for the target noun's group directly from the span, rather than from the full sentence, might reduce the 'Anti-Immigration Stance' over-assignment seen on the immigration corpus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised pipeline for inducing conceptual metaphors from text. It extracts (source verb, target noun) linguistic metaphor candidates via dependency patterns and an LLM binary classifier; generates textual framing interpretations and discrete target-group and image-schema labels for each metaphor using an LLM; and then applies constrained k-means clustering with soft cannot-link constraints over the target-group and image-schema labels. The resulting clusters are treated as candidate evidence for conceptual metaphors. The authors evaluate metaphor detection on the LCC dataset, cluster quality via purity, political-polarity prediction, and an intrusion test on immigration tweets, gun-control news, and abortion news, and present a podcast case study comparing left- and right-leaning sources.

Significance. If validated, the proposed approach would be a useful tool for large-scale metaphor and media-framing analysis, combining LLM-based interpretation with CMT-inspired constraints in a fully unsupervised setting. The paper's design is innovative in using generated framing implications as clustering features and in treating target/source properties as constraints rather than as hard cluster assignments. The authors also commit to releasing data and code, and they include an unusually thorough error analysis. However, the current evaluation does not directly validate the central claim that the clusters correspond to conceptual metaphors: the purity metric is partly circular, hyperparameters are tuned on the evaluation data, and the immigration corpus shows substantial annotation noise. The significance of the contribution therefore remains conditional on resolving these validation issues.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Table 2] The purity metric is computed with respect to the same target-group and image-schema labels that are used to construct the cannot-link constraints in §3.3. The large improvements over vanilla k-means (e.g., 20.85→43.36 for immigration, 17.53→94.6 for gun control) are therefore partly mechanical: the constraints directly penalize cluster assignments that disagree with those labels. This does not validate the claim that clusters correspond to conceptual metaphors. The authors should evaluate clusters against an independent gold standard, for example by having expert annotators label a sample of clusters for the underlying source–target mapping, or by comparing the induced clusters against a known metaphor inventory such as the Master Metaphor List, and report agreement on that basis.
  2. [§4.3 and App. K] The cluster number k and constraint weight wc are selected by optimizing polarity F1 and purity on the same datasets used for the reported results (App. K). The F1 and purity values in Table 2 are therefore optimistic estimates of performance on new data. The authors should either use a held-out validation set (or nested cross-validation) to choose these hyperparameters, or report results across a range of k and wc values and show that the conclusions are not sensitive to the specific choice.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 6 and 9] For the immigration corpus, the target-group annotation accuracy is only 0.5/1 (§4.2, Table 9), and the inter-annotator agreement for the source image-schema group is very low (Gwet's AC1 = 0.286, K-α = −0.015, Table 6). Since target groups and image-schema groups are the exact signals that define the clustering constraints (§3.3), this level of noise means the constraints will frequently split true conceptual metaphors or merge unrelated ones based on LLM confusion rather than genuine source–target structure. The paper's caution about the immigration corpus is appropriate, but the general claim of applicability 'across topics' (§1) depends on this component being reliable. The authors should either improve the annotation (e.g., with few-shot chain-of-thought prompting or post-hoc filtering) or explicitly show that the clustering results are robust to label noise, for example by comparing against a version with the noisy constraint removed.
  4. [§3.3] Even in the limit of perfect target-group and image-schema labels, the cannot-link constraints are necessary but not sufficient to identify conceptual metaphors: many distinct conceptual metaphors share the same coarse target group and image schema. The only remaining separation signal is the text similarity of LLM-generated framing implications, and that signal is not independently validated. For example, 'Gun ownership qualification is entering a building' and 'Background checks are barriers' could plausibly share target group and spatial-motion schema, and the method's ability to keep them separate rests entirely on the embedding of generated interpretations. The paper should provide evidence that within-cluster source-domain mappings are actually coherent, for example by having experts identify the source domain for a random sample of clusters and measuring intra-cluster source-domain agreement.
  5. [§4.4 and App. M] The qualitative validation recovers a small number of well-known metaphors (immigration as natural disaster, parasites, commodity/cargo) and introduces novel ones (e.g., 'Gun ownership qualification is entering a building'). However, the clusters shown are selected by importance ranking for political polarity, and the paper does not report how many clusters were inspected, how many were judged clean vs. messy, or what proportion of the full cluster set corresponds to coherent conceptual metaphors. The qualitative analysis therefore risks overstating success via cherry-picking. The authors should report a systematic evaluation, such as an inter-annotator study on a random sample of clusters, measuring the fraction of clusters that experts agree correspond to a single conceptual metaphor with a well-defined source–target mapping.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. C] There is an inconsistency in table/figure references: the constructional patterns are introduced as 'Fig. 3' in App. C, but they appear as 'Table 3' in §4.1 and in the appendix itself; please unify the reference.
  2. [§4.1 and App. H] The paper reports results on a single run for the LLM-based methods (zero-shot, temperature = 1). Given the stochasticity of generation, a single run makes it impossible to assess variance. Please report results over multiple seeds or state the variance explicitly.
  3. [Table 6] The very low K-α (−0.015) and AC1 (0.286) for the source image-schema group in the immigration corpus should be discussed in the main text, not only in the appendix, since this annotation directly feeds into the clustering constraints.
  4. [§5] The podcast case study is presented as demonstrating the framework's utility, but the number of linguistic metaphors (4,650) is relatively small and the transcription quality is not assessed. The Limitations section acknowledges this, but the main-text claims about 'key topical and framing differences' in podcasts should be tempered with an explicit caveat about the unvalidated transcription step.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Cluster-quality metrics are partially self-referential: purity reuses the same LLM labels that define the cannot-link constraints, and k/wc are tuned on the reported metrics; metaphor identification itself retains external qualitative checks.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Purity, Table 2]
    "We measure cluster purity with respect to the discrete target and source properties. For each cluster, we take the majority label as ground truth and average member agreement with it, over all clusters and label types. Structured clustering improves cluster purity over K-Means in all cases (Tab. 2). This is expected, since our cannot-link constraints act directly on these properties."

    The 'ground truth' labels used for purity are exactly the LLM-generated target-group and image-schema labels that define the cannot-link constraints in the clustering objective. Since the objective penalizes placing items with conflicting labels in the same cluster, purity computed against those same labels is a measure of constraint satisfaction, not of conceptual-metaphor identity. The reported improvement over vanilla K-means is therefore by construction and cannot independently support the claim that clusters correspond to CMT source-target mappings.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, Discrete Property Annotations; Section 4.2]
    "To arrive at a canonical set of target groups for a corpus, we first prompt to classify each identified target noun as a person, place, thing, or organization... we prompt an LLM to identify the high-level noun groups within... Finally, we prompt to map each target word to a target group given its context sentence."

    The same LLM that creates the target-group taxonomy also assigns each noun to a group, and Section 4.2's 'correctness of target group assignment' is judged against that LLM-generated taxonomy. The paper's own error analysis shows these labels can be broad framing labels ('Anti-Immigration Stance') rather than target domains, so the constraint signal and the evaluation signal are both downstream of the same LLM output.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix K; reported in Section 4.3, Table 2]
    "We select hyperparameters that optimize performance for both metrics. We find that k= 225 and wc = 0.05 is best for immigration, k= 175 and wc = 0.1 is best for gun control, and k= 250 and wc = 0.1 is best for abortion."

    The two metrics used for hyperparameter selection are the same purity and polarity-F1 metrics later reported in Table 2 as evidence that structured clustering works. Because k and wc are chosen to maximize these exact metrics on the evaluation datasets, the reported numbers are partly fitted rather than independent predictions, so they overstate the apparent quality of the clusters.

full rationale

The paper's strongest non-circular components are its metaphor-detection benchmark (Sec. 4.1, evaluated on the external LCC labels and on a human-annotated sample from the immigration corpus) and its qualitative recovery of well-documented conceptual metaphors such as 'immigration is a natural disaster' and 'immigrants are parasites' (Sec. 4.4). The circularity is concentrated in the cluster-quality evaluation. In Sec. 4.3, cluster purity is computed against the exact LLM-generated target-group and image-schema labels that define the cannot-link constraints; the authors even note the improvement 'is expected, since our cannot-link constraints act directly on these properties.' This makes the purity numbers a check on constraint satisfaction, not on whether clusters correspond to CMT conceptual metaphors. A second self-referential loop is the target-group taxonomy: the LLM both constructs the target-group label set and maps each target noun into it, and Section 4.2 scores 'correct target group assignment' against that same taxonomy. Third, Appendix K selects k and wc by optimizing the same purity and polarity-F1 metrics that Table 2 then reports, so those numbers are partly fitted rather than held-out. None of these steps makes the central derivation logically equivalent to its inputs: the polarity-F1 signal, the intrusion test, and the qualitative metaphors are independent content. The appropriate finding is partial circularity in the cluster-quality evaluation, not full circularity of the method.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on CMT domain assumptions plus LLM annotation quality, and the evaluation depends on several fitted hyperparameters selected using the same outcome metrics that are later reported. No new theoretical entities are introduced; the clusters are data-driven constructs rather than newly posited mechanisms.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of clusters k = 225 (immigration), 175 (gun control), 250 (abortion)
    Selected in App. K as the value that optimizes polarity F1 and purity on each full evaluation dataset, not on held-out data; this makes reported metrics optimistic.
  • Constraint weight wc = 0.05 (immigration), 0.1 (gun control), 0.1 (abortion)
    Selected together with k in App. K on the same datasets used for reporting; tuning on the evaluation metric is a form of fitting.
  • Number of noun-group clusters for target group induction = not reported, chosen by silhouette score in [2,15] for each noun category
    App. D. The target group taxonomy is induced with k-means using silhouette score, so the evaluation target groups are derived from the data rather than externally fixed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conceptual metaphors exist as systematic source-to-target domain mappings and are evidenced by groups of linguistic metaphors.
    Central to CMT, cited from Lakoff and Johnson; the paper adopts this without independent test, and it is the theoretical object the clusters claim to recover.
  • domain assumption Every relevant linguistic metaphor can be represented as a within-sentence (source verb, target noun) pair.
    Sec. 3.1; this excludes metaphors carried by adjectives, nouns, and multiword constructions, which the paper itself notes in App. M when animal metaphors arrive through nouns and fail to cluster cleanly.
  • domain assumption The LLM's generated framing implications and discrete labels are faithful enough to the metaphor for clustering.
    Sec. 3.2 and App. N; the paper's own annotation study shows dataset-dependent quality, with immigration target group correctness at 0.5/1.
  • domain assumption Conflicting target group or image schema labels reliably indicate that two metaphors cannot share a conceptual metaphor.
    Sec. 3.3; matching labels are treated as weak evidence, conflicts as strong constraints. If the labels are noisy, this constraint logic breaks.
  • domain assumption The image schema taxonomy (spatial motion, force, balance, other) from Johnson (1990) is an appropriate coarse source-domain signal.
    Adopted from cognitive linguistics to constrain clusters; it is a simplification of source-domain structure.
  • standard math Constrained k-means as implemented by Das et al. (2026) converges to a useful local optimum with the soft penalty objective shown in Alg. 1.
    The algorithm is inherited without convergence analysis or sensitivity checks; random initialization and soft constraints can produce different partitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovering Conceptual Metaphors Across Topics and Media Types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C6C4XWBP

@misc{pith2026260806652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovering Conceptual Metaphors Across Topics and Media Types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C6C4XWBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06652}
}
read the original abstract

Conceptual metaphors guide our thinking and actions by allowing us to reason about more abstract experiences (e.g., paying taxes) in terms of more concrete or embodied experiences (e.g., carrying a physical load) (Lakoff and Johnson, 2011). It follows that different conceptual metaphors can result in different reasoning: framing paying taxes as an investment in a community rather than a physical load leads to a very different outlook on taxation. Identifying the conceptual metaphors guiding a speaker or writer thus helps to reveal their framing of events. Though these metaphors can't be observed directly, groups of linguistic metaphors, metaphorical expressions as they appear in language, serve as evidence for them. Motivated by this, we present an unsupervised method that extracts linguistic metaphors from a corpus and uses a structured clustering approach to form groups corresponding to conceptual metaphors. Using this method, we point to key topical and framing differences in left- vs. right-leaning podcasts. For example, left-leaning podcasts tend to conceptualize media stories as a weapon, while right-leaning sources commonly discuss the economy as a system subject to vertical changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06652 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example inspired by Lakoff et al. (2004). load source domain (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline for extracting linguistic metaphors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conceptual metaphors in left vs. right sources. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Channel coverage over analysis years [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of linguistic metaphors sampled for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average episode duration by channel. Are certain target groups more common in left￾or right-leaning podcasts? [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Most commonly-used target groups by the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The writer is pointing to the action of circumventing immigration laws as a crime

    Thesource_word ‘skirt’ is being used metaphorically in the sentence. The writer is pointing to the action of circumventing immigration laws as a crime

    work page

  2. [2]

    The goal here is to identify broader groups that the target noun belongs in

    Complete annotations related to the target_word.This includes the correct_ng and correct_tg columns. The goal here is to identify broader groups that the target noun belongs in. The steps are included below, as well as on the ‘Target Word’ tab of this document. (a) Identify the target word in the context sentence. (b) Determine if the target word has been...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The source image schema group is meant to help characterize the source domain of the metaphor

    Complete annotation related to the source_word.This includes the correct_ss column. The source image schema group is meant to help characterize the source domain of the metaphor. The goal is to match the metaphorical source verb to the group that best describes the action that the verb would describe if used literally. Note that if you do not agree that t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (a) First determine whetherallthe sentences listed are plausible implications of the sentence as a whole

    Complete annotations related to the frame_implications.This includes the plausible_implications andmetaphor_implications. (a) First determine whetherallthe sentences listed are plausible implications of the sentence as a whole. If they are, mark plausible_implications as true. If even one is implausible, mark false and leave metaphor_implicationsblank. (b...

    work page

  5. [10]

    However, ‘crime’ itself is not an ‘Anti-Immigration Sentiment’

    The noun ‘crime’ is best classified as a ‘thing’, so we may setcorrect_ng to true. However, ‘crime’ itself is not an ‘Anti-Immigration Sentiment’. It would be better classified as ‘Other’ because it does not fit cleanly into the target groups provided for the ‘Immigration’ dataset. Therefore we setcorrect_tgto false

    work page

  6. [11]

    This fits cleanly into the ‘spatial_motion’ source schema category

    Thesource_word ‘skirt’, if used literally, would mean to physically pass around something. This fits cleanly into the ‘spatial_motion’ source schema category. So we markcorrect_ssas true

    work page

  7. [12]

    The sentences also pertain directly to the metaphorical use of ‘skirt’ in the sentence

    The sentences are plausible implications of the metaphorical sentence as a whole, so we mark plausible_implications as true. The sentences also pertain directly to the metaphorical use of ‘skirt’ in the sentence. Note that the phrase ‘marrying your brother’ here is also a target of the metaphor, as it is being directly considered in terms of the spatial m...

    work page

  8. [13]

    We acknowledge this, mark metaphor_implicationsas ‘Not Metaphorical’, and move on

    The source_word ‘prohibiting’ is being used literally in the context. We acknowledge this, mark metaphor_implicationsas ‘Not Metaphorical’, and move on

    work page

Show all 25 references
  1. [14]

    It is best classified as a ‘thing’ and fits cleanly into the ‘Klu Klux Klan’ target group

    The noun ‘that’ in the sentence refers to ‘the KKK’. It is best classified as a ‘thing’ and fits cleanly into the ‘Klu Klux Klan’ target group. We markcorrect_ngandcorrect_tgas true

  2. [15]

    We markcorrect_ssas True

    The verb ‘prohibiting’ does not cleanly fit into the source schema groups, so ‘other’ is an appropriate annotation. We markcorrect_ssas True

  3. [16]

    Illegal immigrants are being denied voting rights due to restrictive measures

    The sentences in the frame_implications column do not all agree with the sentenceor even one an- other. The sentence itself means that there is a perception that ICE, like the KKK, is disallowing immi- grants to vote. It seems implied that this perception is dramatic and false...

  4. [17]

    Identify the target word in the context sentence. 35

  5. [18]

    If it has, continue to annotatecorrect_tg

    Determine if the target word has been correctly defined as person/place/thing/organization and mark the correct_ngaccordingly. If it has, continue to annotatecorrect_tg. If not, leavecorrect_tgblank. (a) Note that there may be some overlap in the person/thing/organization labe...

  6. [19]

    This will show the list of possible target groups for each noun group

    Navigate to the subtab of this document tab corresponding to the dataset you’re working on. This will show the list of possible target groups for each noun group. Determine whether the target group classification is plausible for the target noun; markcorrect_tgaccordingly. Tar...

  7. [20]

    Identify the source word in the sentence

  8. [21]

    Determine what action the verb would describe if it were used literally

  9. [22]

    Does this action plausibly fit into the category determined by the LLM?

  10. [23]

    trapped”, “enter

    The categories and subcategories are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a verb can fit into multiple categories. If the LLM-assigned image schema group is plausible, mark True. Spatial Motion physical movement through space •Containment: being inside or outside a bounded ...

  11. [24]

    If they are, mark plausible_implications as true

    First determine whetherallthe sentences listed are plausible implications of the sentence as a whole. If they are, mark plausible_implications as true. If even one is implausible, mark false and leave metaphor_implicationsblank

  12. [25]

    Otherwise, determine whether the sentences are specifically related to the metaphor

    If you do not agree that the source word is used metaphorically, leave the metaphor_implications column blank. Otherwise, determine whether the sentences are specifically related to the metaphor. Sentences will be related to the metaphor if they are guided by the logic of the ...

    2021

  13. [2016]

    Standard

    Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony.Commu- nication Theory, 26(4):410–430. Dallas Card, Serina Chang, Chris Becker, Julia Mendel- sohn, Rob V oigt, Leah Boustan, Ran Abramitzky, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Computational analysis of 1...

    2022 arXiv

  14. [2020]

    Michael Mohler, Mary Brunson, Bryan Rink, and Marc Tomlinson

    A Framework for the Computational Linguis- tic Analysis of Dehumanization.Frontiers in Artifi- cial Intelligence, 3:55. Michael Mohler, Mary Brunson, Bryan Rink, and Marc Tomlinson. 2016. Introducing the LCC metaphor datasets. InProceedings of the Tenth International Conferenc...

    2016

  15. [2024]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych

    Metaphor Identification and Interpretation in Corpora with ChatGPT.SN Computer Science, 5(8):976. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence- BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT- networks. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu...

    2019

  16. [2025]

    surface realization

    Podcasts and News Fact Sheet. Technical report, Pew Research Center. Ekaterina Shutova. 2010. Models of metaphor in NLP. InProceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 688–697, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Com- putational L...

    1992 arXiv

  17. [2026]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2026, pages 38334–38355, San Diego, California, United States

    Not all ANIMALs are equal: Metaphorical framing through source domains and semantic frames. InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2026, pages 38334–38355, San Diego, California, United States. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. Paolo Pedi...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.