Metaphorical meaning is not a flat mapping between concepts, but a complex cognitive phenomenon that integrates multiple levels of interpretation. In this paper, we propose a stratified model of metaphor processing that treats meaning as an onion: a multi-layered structure comprising (1) content analysis, (2) conceptual blending, and (3) pragmatic intentionality. This three-dimensional framework allows for a richer and more cognitively grounded approach to metaphor interpretation in computational systems. At the first level, metaphors are annotated through basic conceptual elements. At the second level, we model conceptual combinations, linking components to emergent meanings. Finally, at the third level, we introduce a pragmatic vocabulary to capture speaker intent, communicative function, and contextual effects, aligning metaphor understanding with pragmatic theories. By unifying these layers into a single formal framework, our model lays the groundwork for computational methods capable of representing metaphorical meaning beyond surface associations, toward deeper, more context-sensitive reasoning.

Metaphor is a fundamental cognitive mechanism that shapes scientific understanding, enabling the communication of complex concepts while potentially constraining paradigmatic thinking. Despite the prevalence of figurative language in scientific discourse, existing metaphor detection resources primarily focus on general-domain text, leaving a critical gap for domain-specific applications. In this paper, we present the Medical Metaphors Corpus (MCC), a comprehensive dataset of 792 annotated scientific conceptual metaphors spanning medical and biological domains. MCC aggregates metaphorical expressions from diverse sources including peer-reviewed literature, news media, social media discourse, and crowdsourced contributions, providing both binary and graded metaphoricity judgments validated through human annotation. Each instance includes source-target conceptual mappings and perceived metaphoricity scores on a 0-7 scale, establishing the first annotated resource for computational scientific metaphor research. Our evaluation demonstrates that state-of-the-art language models achieve modest performance on scientific metaphor detection, revealing substantial room for improvement in domain-specific figurative language understanding. MCC enables multiple research applications including metaphor detection benchmarking, quality-aware generation systems, and patient-centered communication tools.

Recent advances in Large Language Models have demonstrated their capabilities across a variety of tasks. However, automatically extracting implicit knowledge from natural language remains a significant challenge, as machines lack active experience with the physical world. Given this scenario, semantic knowledge graphs can serve as conceptual spaces that guide the automated text generation reasoning process to achieve more efficient and explainable results. In this paper, we apply a logic-augmented generation (LAG) framework that leverages the explicit representation of a text through a semantic knowledge graph and applies it in combination with prompt heuristics to elicit implicit analogical connections. This method generates extended knowledge graph triples representing implicit meaning, enabling systems to reason on unlabeled multimodal data regardless of the domain. We validate our work through three metaphor detection and understanding tasks across four datasets, as they require deep analogical reasoning capabilities. The results show that this integrated approach surpasses current baselines, performs better than humans in understanding visual metaphors, and enables more explainable reasoning processes, though still has inherent limitations in metaphor understanding, especially for domain-specific metaphors. Furthermore, we propose a thorough error analysis, discussing issues with metaphorical annotations and current evaluation methods.

Given the massive integration of AI technologies into our daily lives, AI-related concepts are being used to metaphorically compare AI systems with human behaviour and/or cognitive abilities like language acquisition. Rightfully, the epistemic success of these metaphorical comparisons should be debated. Against the backdrop of the conflicting positions of the 'computational' and 'meat' chauvinisms, we ask: can the conceptual constellation of the computational and AI be applied to the human domain and what does it mean to do so? What is one doing when the conceptual constellations of AI in particular are used in this fashion? Rooted in a Wittgensteinian view of concepts and language-use, we consider two possible answers and pit them against each other: either these examples are conceptual metaphors, or they are attempts at conceptual engineering. We argue that they are conceptual metaphors, but that (1) this position is unaware of its own epistemological contingency, and (2) it risks committing the ''map-territory fallacy''. Down at the conceptual foundations of computation, (3) it most importantly is a misleading 'double metaphor' because of the metaphorical connection between human psychology and computation. In response to the shortcomings of this projected conceptual organisation of AI onto the human domain, we argue that there is a semantic catch. The perspective of the conceptual metaphors shows avenues for forms of conceptual engineering. If this methodology's criteria are met, the fallacies and epistemic shortcomings related to the conceptual metaphor view can be bypassed. At its best, the cross-pollution of the human and AI conceptual domains is one that prompts us to reflect anew on how the boundaries of our current concepts serve us and how they could be approved.

They appear extensively across all domains of natural language, from the most sophisticated poetry to seemingly dry academic prose. A significant body of research in the cognitive science of language argues for the existence of conceptual metaphors, the systematic structuring of one domain of experience in the language of another. Conceptual metaphors are not simply rhetorical flourishes but are crucial evidence of the role of analogical reasoning in human cognition. In this paper, we ask whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can accurately identify and explain the presence of such conceptual metaphors in natural language data. Using a novel prompting technique based on metaphor annotation guidelines, we demonstrate that LLMs are a promising tool for large-scale computational research on conceptual metaphors. Further, we show that LLMs are able to apply procedural guidelines designed for human annotators, displaying a surprising depth of linguistic knowledge.

The corpus is intended to serve as a reference for training and evaluating methods for anatomical entity mention detection in life science publications.

This paper provides a framework to construct a computational model of conceptual metaphor. We first analyze how conceptual metaphor is described by Algebraic Semiotic at linguistic level and by Institutional Theory (an abstract model theory) at a general logical level. By the Logic of Determination of Objects, which has been used in a system of semantic annotation and in a building ontologies system, we further provide a new computational model as a rival approach.

Full natural language understanding requires identifying and analyzing the meanings of metaphors, which are ubiquitous in both text and speech. Over the last thirty years, linguistic metaphors have been shown to be based on more general conceptual metaphors, partial semantic mappings between disparate conceptual domains. Though some achievements have been made in identifying linguistic metaphors over the last decade or so, little work has been done to date on automatically identifying conceptual metaphors. This paper describes research on identifying conceptual metaphors based on corpus data. Our method uses as little background knowledge as possible, to ease transfer to new languages and to mini- mize any bias introduced by the knowledge base construction process. The method relies on general heuristics for identifying linguistic metaphors and statistical clustering (guided by Wordnet) to form conceptual metaphor candidates. Human experiments show the system effectively finds meaningful conceptual metaphors.