Open-Ended Elaborations in Creative Metaphor - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 220

''A voice [v] inside Mary insisted that Mick was adorable."

SOURCE−BASED MEANING

says(v, adorable(mick), insistingly)

is−voice(v)

physically−in(says(...), mary)

REALITY

physically−in(v,mary) SPACE

phys−in(owner−of(v), mary)

[by ANCILLARY assumptions]

phys−in(interloc−of(owner−of(v)),

mary)

says(owner−of(v), adorable(mick),
insistingly)

motive−to−believe(owner−of(v), adorable(mick))

motive−to−believe(mary, adorable(mick))

says(interloc−of(owner−of(v)),
NOT(adorable(mick)),

ordinary−manner)

motive−to−believe(interlocutor−of(owner−of(v)),

NOT(adorable(Mick)))

motive−to−believe(mary, NOT(adorablle(mick))

PRETENCE
SPACE

Fig. 11.1 Showing the processing for (a present tense version of) example (6). The heavily outlined
box shows the pretence space. The thick , circled arrows crossing the box boundary from inside shows
a mapping action, specifically one that arises from a view-specific correspondence rule (8) in the
text, associated with the Mind as Having Parts that are Persons view. The thin lines joining the thick
arrow show the dependence of the correspondence on the guard conditions in (8). Other arrows
show ordinary inference steps

In summary so far, ATT-Meta is able to deal with open-ended elaborations through
open-ended inference within the pretence, deriving conclusions (indirectly from the
literal meanings of sentences) that can be transferred with the help of correspondence
rules such as (8,9) to become statements about the target scenario. To emphasize this
point further, I mentioned above a potential variant of (6) that uses “shouting” instead