Cover not available
Part of
Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages: MIPVU around the world
Edited by Susan Nacey, Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr and W. Gudrun Reijnierse
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 22] 2019
► pp. 41–67

Chapter 3
What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you (even though it mostly does)

 | , , NorwayInland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
 | , , The NetherlandsVU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
 | , , The NetherlandsLeiden University, The Netherlands
 | , , The NetherlandsCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Article outline
  • 3.1Introduction
  • Part 1: Practicalities of MIPVU
  • 3.2How do I determine what comprises a lexical unit?
  • 3.3How do I determine a ‘more basic meaning’ of a lexical unit?
    • 3.3.1The ‘it feels basic to me’ pitfall
    • 3.3.2The ‘but there has to be a single basic meaning’ pitfall
    • 3.3.3The ‘no contextual meaning’ pitfall
    • 3.3.4The ‘grammatical category / word class’ pitfall
  • 3.4How do I go about contrasting and comparing meanings?
  • 3.5Which tools should I use to annotate my dataset?
    • 3.5.1Initial independent MIPVU analysis
    • 3.5.2Further comparative MIPVU analysis
    • 3.5.3Statistical analysis of MIPVU results
  • 3.6Reliability testing
  • Part 2: Choosing your approach and your data
  • 3.7Decision 1: Quantitative, qualitative, or both?
  • 3.8Decision 2: Which (elements in) texts and why?
  • 3.9Concluding thoughts
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.03nac
References (24)
References
Archer, D., Wilson, A., & Rayson, P. (2002). Introduction to the USAS category system. [URL]Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2003): Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 18(3), 149–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canty, A., & Ripley, B. (2015). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions, R package version 1.3-20. [URL]
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 106–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dorst, A. G., & Reijnierse, W. G. (2015). A dictionary gives definitions, not decision. Response 1 to ‘On using a dictionary to identify the basic senses of words’. Metaphor and the Social World 5(1), 137–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorst, A. G., Reijnierse, W. G., & Venhuizen, G. (2013). One small step for MIP towards automated metaphor identification? Formulating general rules to determine basic meanings in large-scale approaches to metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World 3(1), 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamer, M., Lemon, J., & Singh, I. F. P. (2012). irr: Various Coefficients of Inter-rater Reliability and Agreement, R package version 0.84. [URL]
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology, Seventh Ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2002). “A shotgun wedding”: Co-occurrence of war and marriage metaphors in mergers and acquisitions discourse, Metaphor and Symbol 17(3), 179–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2017). VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. In J. Pustejovsky & N. E. Ide (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 1053–1072). Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lew, R. (2013). Identifying, ordering and defining senses. In H. Jackson (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to lexicography (pp. 284–302). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Inter-rater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem Med 22(3), 276–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics 2(2), 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S., & Rayson, P. (2018). Metaphor, cancer and the end of life. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, gaps (pp. 197–226). Berlin: Mouton du Gruyter.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 63–105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van der Meer, G. (1999). Metaphors and dictionaries: The morass of meaning or how to get two ideas for one. International Journal of Lexicography 12(3), 195–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Andreolli, Giorgia
2024. A qualitative study of endometriosis-related pain. Metaphor and the Social World 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Thomas Wiben Jensen
2023. Zooming in on the notion of metaphoricity . Metaphor and the Social World 13:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Paula Pérez Sobrino
2023. Introduction. Metaphor and the Social World 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Jódar-Sánchez, Jose Antonio
2023.  Urban Sexuality and Geological Erotism in Antagonía by Luis Goytisolo . Romance Studies 41:3 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Falck, Marlene Johansson & Lacey Okonski
2022. Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (pims): A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to Bridge Theory and Practice. Cognitive Semantics 8:2 ► pp. 294 ff. DOI logo
Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lacey Okonski
2023. Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (PIMS): The Case of Spatial and Abstract Relations. Metaphor and Symbol 38:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schmitt, Rudolf, Larissa Pfaller, Julia Schröder & Anne-Kathrin Hoklas
2022. Die Praxis der systematischen Metaphernanalyse. Anwendungen und Anschlüsse. In Die Praxis der systematischen Metaphernanalyse, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.