Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages: MIPVU around the world

Description

This volume explores linguistic metaphor identification in a wide variety of languages and language families. The book is an essential read for anyone interested in researching language and metaphor, from students to experienced scholars. Its primary goals are to discuss the challenges involved in applying the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU) to a range of languages across the globe, and to offer theoretically grounded advice and guidelines enabling researchers to identify metaphors in multiple languages in a valid and replicable way. The volume is intended as a practical guidebook that identifies and discusses procedural challenges of metaphor identification across languages, thus better enabling researchers to reliably identify metaphor in a multitude of languages. Although able to be read independently, this volume – written by metaphor researchers from around the world – is the ideal companion volume for the 2010 Benjamins book A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages Editorial page Title page Copyright page Table of contents Chapter 1. MIPVU in multiple languages 1.1 Why MIPVU in multiple languages? 1.2 Methods for linguistic metaphor identification 1.2.1 The development of MIP and MIPVU 1.2.2 MIP vs. MIPVU 1.2.3 Other methods for linguistic metaphor identification 1.3 Perspectives on the past, present and future of linguistic metaphor identification: An interview with Gerard Steen 1.4 How to read this volume 1.5 MIPVU in multiple languages References Chapter 2. MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words 2.1 The basic procedure 2.2 Deciding about words: Lexical units 2.2.1 General guideline 2.2.2 Exceptions 2.3 Indirect use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 2.3.1 Identifying contextual meanings 2.3.2 Deciding about more basic meanings 2.3.3 Deciding about sufficient distinctness 2.3.4 Deciding about the role of similarity 2.4 Direct use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 2.5 Implicit meaning potentially explained by cross-domain mapping 2.6 Signals of potential cross-domain mappings 2.7 New formations and parts that may be potentially explained by cross-domain mapping Acknowledgements References Chapter 3. What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you (even though it mostly does) 3.1 Introduction Part 1: Practicalities of MIPVU 3.2 How do I determine what comprises a lexical unit? 3.3 How do I determine a ‘more basic meaning’ of a lexical unit? 3.3.1 The ‘it feels basic to me’ pitfall 3.3.2 The ‘but there has to be a single basic meaning’ pitfall 3.3.3 The ‘no contextual meaning’ pitfall 3.3.4 The ‘grammatical category / word class’ pitfall 3.4 How do I go about contrasting and comparing meanings? 3.5 Which tools should I use to annotate my dataset? 3.5.1 Initial independent MIPVU analysis 3.5.2 Further comparative MIPVU analysis 3.5.3 Statistical analysis of MIPVU results 3.6 Reliability testing Part 2: Choosing your approach and your data 3.7 Decision 1: Quantitative, qualitative, or both? 3.8 Decision 2: Which (elements in) texts and why? 3.9 Concluding thoughts Acknowledgements References Chapter 4. Linguistic metaphor identification in French 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Linguistic metaphor identification in French 4.2.1 Idiosyncratic features of French that may affect metaphor identification by means of MIPVU 4.2.2 Prepositions à and de, and contracted forms 4.2.3 Turning MIP into PIM: Guidelines for applying MIPVU to French 4.2.4 PIM in practice: Identifying metaphor in French 4.3 Some consequences of using one dictionary (and not another) for metaphor identification (in French) 4.3.1 Data and dictionaries 4.3.2 Results: Comparing agreement between the two dictionaries 4.3.3 The qualitative perspective: Some clear differences between the two dictionaries 4.3.4 Some final thoughts about choosing and using a dictionary for metaphor identification in French 4.4 Concluding remarks References Dictionaries used Chapter 5. Linguistic metaphor identification in Dutch 5.1 Introduction: Metaphor in Dutch discourse 5.2 Operational issues 5.2.1 The corpus: News and conversation 5.2.2 Van dale dictionary and its implications 5.3 Linguistic issues: Complex words and fixed expressions 5.3.1 Separable complex verbs 5.3.2 Polywords 5.4 Dutch metaphor analysis: Agreement and disagreement 5.4.1 Dutch discourse and agreement 5.4.2 Dutch discourse and disagreement 5.5 Conclusion Acknowledgements References Chapter 6. Linguistic metaphor identification in German 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Language-specific issues 6.3 Operational issues 6.3.1 The data 6.3.2 Part-of-Speech tagging 6.3.3 Lexicographic resources 6.4 The guidelines 6.4.1 Demarcation of lexical units 6.4.2 Non-autonomous sense descriptions 6.4.3 Deciding about distinctness of word meanings 6.5 Reliability 6.5.1 Lexical units 6.6 Conclusion Acknowledgements References Chapter 7. Linguistic metaphor identification in Scandinavian 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Lexico-grammatical features of Scandinavian 7.3 Procedural issues 7.3.1 Dictionaries 7.3.2 Lexical units 7.4 Scandinavian MIPVU in a nutshell 7.5 Application of Scandinavian MIPVU 7.6 Reliability results 7.6.1 Demarcation of lexical units 7.6.2 Identification of metaphor-related words 7.7 Concluding remarks References Chapter 8. Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Operational challenges: Lithuanian dictionaries 8.2.1 Dictionaries and corpus of Lithuanian 8.2.2 Cross-referencing 8.2.3 Absence of senses 8.2.4 Obsolete or dialectal basic senses 8.2.5 Conflated concrete and abstract senses 8.3 Challenges to MIPVU application in Lithuanian: Grammatical cases and derivational morphology 8.4 Illustrations of MIPVU application in Lithuanian 8.4.1 Two cases of straightforward application of MIPVU 8.4.2 Grammatical case: From non-metaphorical to metaphorical 8.4.3 Potential metaphoricity of derivational affixes and the reflexive particle 8.5 Concluding remarks: Possible adjustments of MIPVU to Lithuanian 8.6 Reliability tests References Chapter 9. Linguistic metaphor identification in Polish 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Data collection and coding 9.3 Linguistic issues 9.3.1 Demarcation of lexical units: Unitization 9.3.2 Establishing the basic and contextual sense: Itemization 9.3.3 Metaphor and declination 9.3.4 Metaphor categorisation: Direct, indirect and implicit metaphors 9.4 Sample analysis 9.5 Applying MIPVU to Polish: Reliability measures 9.6 MIPVU for Polish: Final guidelines and conclusions Acknowledgements References Chapter 10. Linguistic metaphor identification in Serbian 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Relevant lexico-grammatical properties of Serbian: Inflectional morphology and case 10.3 Operational issues 10.3.1 Data 10.3.2 Procedure 10.3.3 Selection and use of dictionary 10.4 Unit demarcation and contextual/basic meaning identification 10.4.1 Determining lexical units 10.4.2 Contextual and basic meaning identification 10.5 Case-encoded metaphoricity 10.5.1 Solutions 10.6 Sample analysis 10.6.1 An overview in numbers 10.6.2 Case-encoded metaphor 10.7 Conclusions Acknowledgment References Sources Chapter 11. Linguistic metaphor identification in Uzbek 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Operational issues 11.2.1 Data collection 11.2.2 Dictionary use 11.3 Linguistic issues 11.3.1 Locative, dative and ablative cases 11.3.2 Compound verbs 11.4 Sample analyses 11.5 Conclusion References Chapter 12. Linguistic metaphor identification in Chinese 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Operationalisation issues 12.2.1 Data of this study 12.2.2 Choice of lexical tools 12.2.3 Use of lexical tools 12.3 Linguistic issues 12.3.1 Demarcation of lexical units in Chinese texts 12.3.2 Chinese-specific types of lexical units 12.4 Annotation categories 12.4.1 Indirect metaphor 12.4.2 Direct metaphor 12.4.3 Implicit metaphor 12.4.4 Borderline cases 12.5 Conclusions References Chapter 13. Linguistic metaphor identification in Sesotho 13.1 Introduction 13.2 Operationalization 13.2.1 The Sesotho dictionaries 13.2.2 The use of SED and Macmillan 13.3 Demarcation of lexical units 13.3.1 The orthographic word 13.3.2 Multiword expressions and compounds 13.3.3 The first person singular object marker n- and the reflexive marker i- 13.3.4 The locative case marker -ng 13.3.5 The affixes ra- and ma- 13.4 Further linguistic characteristics of Sesotho that affect the use of MIPVU 13.4.1 Verb extensions 13.4.2 The diminutive marker, the augmentative marker, and reduplication 13.5 MIPVU adjusted for Sesotho 13.6 Sample analysis 13.7 Conclusion References Chapter 14. Linguistic metaphor identification in English as a lingua franca 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Metaphor in English as (academic) lingua franca: Problems and challenges 14.3 The European corpus of academic talk (EuroCoAT) 14.4 Lexical units 14.5 Contextual meanings 14.6 More basic meanings 14.7 Deciding on metaphorical meanings 14.8 Application of the modifications to MIPVU: Mark-up system and the search for coherence 14.9 Conclusion Acknowledgements References Chapter 15. Afterword: Some reflections on MIPVU across languages 15.1 Introduction: Counting metaphors without an identification procedure 15.2 MIP, MIPVU and English 15.3 MIPVU in languages other than English: The contribution of this book 15.3.1 Problems with lexical units 15.3.2 Problems with dictionaries 15.4 Concluding caveats, and looking ahead References About the authors Index