Table Of ContentA Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification
Converging Evidence in Language
and Communication Research (CELCR)
Over the past decades, linguists have taken a broader view of language and are
borrowing methods and findings from other disciplines such as cognition and
computer sciences, neurology, biology, sociology, psychology, and anthropology.
This development has enriched our knowledge of language and communication,
but at the same time it has made it difficult for researchers in a particular field of
language studies to be aware of how their findings might relate to those in other
(sub-)disciplines.
CELCR seeks to address this problem by taking a cross-disciplinary approach
to the study of language and communication. The books in the series focus on a
specific linguistic topic and offer studies pertaining to this topic from different
disciplinary angles, thus taking converging evidence in language and communi-
cation research as its basic methodology.
Editors
Marjolijn H. Verspoor Wilbert Spooren
University of Groningen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Advisory Board
Walter Daelemans Leo Noordman
University of Antwerp Tilburg University
Cliff Goddard Martin Pütz
University of New England University of Koblenz-Landau
Roeland van Hout
Radboud University Nijmegen
Volume 14
A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification. From MIP to MIPVU
by Gerard J. Steen, Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal,
Tina Krennmayr and Trijntje Pasma
A Method for
Linguistic Metaphor Identification
From MIP to MIPVU
Gerard J. Steen
Aletta G. Dorst
J. Berenike Herrmann
Anna A. Kaal
Tina Krennmayr
Trijntje Pasma
VU University Amsterdam
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A method for linguistic metaphor identification : from MIP to MIPVU / Gerard J. Steen
... [et al.].
p. cm. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, issn 1566-7774
; v. 14)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Metaphor. I. Steen, Gerard.
P301.5.M48M49 2010
415--dc22 2010011037
isbn 978 90 272 3903 7 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 8815 8 (Eb)
© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Preface ix
Acknowledgements xi
chapter 1
Linguistic metaphor identification in usage 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Introducing MIP 5
1.3 Aspects of interpretation 7
1.4 Aspects of conceptualization 10
1.5 Aspects of operationalization 12
1.6 Data collection 16
1.7 Data analysis 19
1.8 Plan of the book 21
chapter 2
MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words 25
2.1 The basic procedure 25
2.2 Deciding about words: Lexical units 26
2.2.1 General guideline 27
2.2.2 Exceptions 27
2.3 Indirect use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 32
2.3.1 Identifying contextual meanings 33
2.3.2 Deciding about more basic meanings 35
2.3.3 Deciding about sufficient distinctness 37
2.3.4 Deciding about the role of similarity 37
2.4 Direct use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 38
2.5 Implicit meaning potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 39
2.6 Signals of potential cross-domain mappings 40
2.7 New-formations and parts that may be potentially
explained by cross-domain mapping 41
i A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification
chapter 3
Metaphor identification in news texts 43
3.1 Introduction 43
3.2 Establishing contextual meanings 46
3.2.1 Specialized terms 47
3.2.2 Novel compounds and novel metaphors 47
3.2.3 Contextual ambiguity 49
3.3 Establishing more basic meanings 52
3.4 Contrast and comparison 54
3.5 Direct metaphor 57
3.6 Conclusion 58
chapter 4
Metaphor identification in conversation 61
4.1 The wild world of conversation 61
4.2 Illustrating MIPVU in conversation 63
4.3 Challenges to MIPVU 68
4.3.1 Problems with identifying the contextual sense 68
4.3.2 Problems with identifying the basic sense 74
4.3.3 Problems with comparing contextual
and basic sense – metonymy 79
4.4 Conclusion 85
chapter 5
Metaphor identification in fiction 87
5.1 Introduction 87
5.2 Straightforward application of MIPVU 90
5.3 Interesting issues 92
5.3.1 Directly expressed metaphors 92
5.3.2 Character descriptions 96
5.3.3 Personification 101
5.4 Conclusion 105
chapter 6
Metaphor identification in academic discourse 107
6.1 Introduction 107
6.2 Unanimous agreement 109
6.3 Lack of agreement 111
6.3.1 Metaphor identification and specialist terms:
Metaphorical to whom? 111
Table of contents ii
6.3.2 Metaphor-related words and scientific models 112
6.3.3 Metaphor-related words and text management 115
6.3.4 Metaphor-related words in extended contexts 120
6.4 Conclusion 124
chapter 7
Metaphor identification in Dutch news and conversations 127
7.1 Introduction 127
7.2 Operational issues 128
7.2.1 The corpus: News and conversation 128
7.2.2 Van Dale dictionary and its implications 130
7.3 Linguistic issues: Complex words and fixed expressions 132
7.3.1 Separable Complex Verbs 132
7.3.2 Polywords 135
7.4 Dutch metaphor analysis: Agreement and disagreement 138
7.4.1 Dutch discourse and agreement 138
7.4.2 Dutch discourse and disagreement 140
7.5 Conclusion 147
chapter 8
Reliability tests 149
8.1 Introduction 149
8.2 Method 151
8.3 Results and discussion: English-language research 153
8.3.1 Study 1 153
8.3.2 Study 2 154
8.3.3 Study 3 155
8.3.4 Study 4 156
8.3.5 Study 5 158
8.3.6 Study 6 160
8.3.7 General discussion of the English language tests 161
8.4 Results and discussion: Dutch-language research 162
8.5 Conclusion 164
chapter 9
From method to research: Cleaning up our act 167
9.1 Lexical units 167
9.1.1 Phrasal verbs 169
9.1.2 Polywords 170
9.1.3 Compounds 171
9.1.4 Conclusion 172
iii A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification
9.2 Words classified as not analyzable or borderline 173
9.2.1 DFMAs 173
9.2.2 WIDLIIs 173
9.2.3 Conclusion 174
9.3 Classes of metaphor and metaphor signals 174
9.4 Individual metaphor-related words 177
9.4.1 Rationale 178
9.4.2 Method 179
9.4.3 Results and discussion 180
9.4.4 Post hoc corrections of individual lexical items 180
9.5 Conclusion 180
chapter 10
Metaphor in English discourse: A corpus-linguistic approach 183
10.1 Introduction 183
10.2 Method 185
10.2.1 Materials 185
10.2.2 Tools 185
10.2.3 Technique 186
10.2.4 Preparation of final database 189
10.3 Results and discussion: Initial exploration 189
10.3.1 Main metaphor categories 189
10.3.2 Simple and complex lexical units, and borderline cases 190
10.4 Results and discussion: Main analysis 194
10.4.1 Metaphor across register and word class 194
10.4.2 Metaphor across word class in four distinct registers 201
10.5 General comparison and conclusion 208
10.5.1 General comparison 208
10.5.2 Conclusion 217
chapter 11
The quality of evidence: From MIP to MIPVU 219
appendix
Overview of annotated files from BNC-Baby 223
References 227
Index 235
Preface
The subtitle of this book was formulated in Cáceres, in May 2008. We were at
the seventh international conference for Researching and Applying Metaphor
(RaAM 7) and saw that a substantial number of papers referred to MIP, or had
even adopted it. MIP is the Metaphor Identification Procedure developed by the
Pragglejaz Group and it had been published only one year before the conference
took place in the journal Metaphor & Symbol (2007, Vol. 22, Number 1, 1–39).
At the time of the conference, our research group had already applied MIP
to a substantial amount of data, and had come up with a refined and extended
version, which we call MIPVU: VU stands for Vrije Universiteit, the university
in Amsterdam that we work at. MIPVU is largely based on MIP, but goes a good
deal further in making explicit and systematic what sorts of decisions have to
be taken by analysts when they identify words as related to metaphor. For these
reasons, MIPVU is also more reliable than MIP, as we shall report in this book.
In Cáceres, therefore, it became clear to us that our planned book report on our
research should be framed and sold as a story that goes from MIP to MIPVU, sim-
ply because metaphor researchers were just getting interested in MIP.
However, due to the immensely helpful comments of two reviewers, we
have organized the book as a report concentrating on MIPVU as such. After an
introductory chapter that sketches the differences between MIP and MIPVU, we
immediately present our own procedure in Chapter 2, and go on, in Chapters 3
through 7, to demonstrate its application to four different registers in English and
two of the same registers in Dutch. The final chapters then present a full-blown
account of how MIPVU leads to results that are methodologically reliable and
empirically revealing. We hope that this series of chapters offers a hands-on per-
spective on linguistic metaphor identification that is useful to all advanced students
of metaphor in language use.
Our research is a matter of team effort. Even though there is a functional dif-
ference in role between Gerard Steen as principal investigator and all of the other
authors as Ph.D. students, each of us has worked on different parts of the project,
and nobody has been in sole charge of any particular portion of the data, such as
one register. The exception is Trijntje Pasma, who has done all of the empirical
research on Dutch by herself. The methodological work, however, which is the
main focus of this book, is a group product.
That is why the book is published under our six names. Different authors have
first responsibility for the various chapters, but the book as a whole is not an edited
