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
This paper examines patterns of metaphor in usage. Four samples of text excerpts of on average 47,000 words each were taken from the British National Corpus and annotated for metaphor. The linguistic metaphor data were collected by five analysts on the basis of a highly explicit identification procedure that is a variant of the approach developed by the Pragglejaz Group (Metaphor and Symbol 22: 1–39, 2007). Part of this paper is a report of the protocol and the reliability of the procedure.
Data analysis shows that, on average, one in every seven and a half lexical units in the corpus is related to metaphor defined as a potential cross-domain mapping in conceptual structure. It also appears that the bulk of the expression of metaphor in discourse consists of non-signalled metaphorically used words, not similes. The distribution of metaphor-related words, finally, turns out to be quite variable between the four registers examined in this study: academic texts have 18.5%, news 16.4%, fiction 11.7%, and conversation 7.7%. The systematic comparative investigation of these registers raises new questions about the relation between cognitive linguistic and other approaches to metaphor.
Drawing on examples from a corpus of 14 excerpts from novels, this article aims to present a systematic investigation of the different linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions of personification in discourse. The Metaphor Identification Procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) and Steen’s five-step procedure (1999, 2009) will be used to present an integral model distinguishing between linguistic, conceptual, and communicative levels of analysis. The influence of linguistic realization, conventionality, deliberateness, metonymy, and stylistic effects will be considered and it will be demonstrated that studying personifications in discourse raises different issues at each level of analysis. As a result, the question whether something should count as a personification may yield a different answer for each level.
This paper offers an integrated typology for the classification of personifications in discourse, based on existing methods for linguistic metaphor identification such as MIP (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) and MIPVU (Steen et al., 2010). The psychological relevance of the proposed typology is explored in an empirical study that examines the recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. A selection of structural properties of personifications is discussed and predictions are formulated regarding which values of which variables are deemed to boost the recognition of personifications. The results suggest that the different types of personification differ in recognizability and that their recognition may be more strongly determined by inherent properties (such as conventionality) than by external factors (such as the presence of a prime). Though the results cannot be unambiguously interpreted, they do indicate some tendencies in the behaviour of non-expert readers and their perceptions of the forms and functions of personification in fiction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.