Much recent research on figurative language and conceptual metaphor theory derives from corpus examination, and analysts are increasingly focused on the development of quantificational tools to reveal co-occurrence patterns indicative of source and target domain associations. Some mappings between source and target are transparent and appear in collocation patterns in natural language data. However, other metaphors, especially those that structure abstract processes, are more complex because the target domain is lexically divorced from the source. Using economic discourse as a case study, this paper introduces new techniques directed at the quantitative evaluation of metaphorical occurrence when target and source relationships are nonobvious. Constellations of source-domain triggers are identified in the data and shown to disproportionately emerge in topic-specific discourse.
Ahmad, K. (2005, June). Terminology in text. Paper presented at the
Tuscan Word Centre Workshop
, Siena, Italy.
Babarczy, A., Bencze, I., Fekete, I., & Simon, E. (2010). The automatic identification of conceptual metaphors in Hungarian texts: A corpus-based analysis. In N. Bel, B. Daille, & A. Vasiljevs (Eds.), LREC 2010 Workshop on Methods for the Automatic Acquisition of Language Resources: Proceedings (pp. 30–37). Malta.
Boers, F. (1997). “No pain, no gain” in a free market rhetoric: A test for cognitive semantics?Metaphor & Symbol, 12(4), 231–241.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse. In W.A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 115–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Cheng, W. (2012). Exploring Corpus Linguistics. England: Routledge.
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blended and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536.
David, O., Dodge, E., Hong, J., Stickles, E., & Sweetser, E. (2014, September). Building the MetaNet metaphor repository: The natural symbiosis of metaphor analysis and construction grammar. Paper presented at the
8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG 8)
, Osnabrück, Germany.
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present [Online Corpus].
Dodge, E., Hong, J., & Stickles, E. (2015, June). Deep semantic automatic metaphor analysis. Paper presented at The
Third Workshop on Metaphor in NLP
, Denver, Colorado.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fausey, C.M., & Matlock, T. (2011). Can grammar win elections?Political Psychology, 32(4), 563–574.
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Gibbs, R., & Nayak, N. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100–138.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovár, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychly, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 1–30.
Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Semino, E. (2008). Using a semantic annotation tool for the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Metaphorik.de, 15(1), 141–160.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2009). The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2012). The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. New York, NY: Free Press.
L’Hôte, E. (2014). Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100(6), 478–483.
McCloskey, D.N. (1986). The Rhetoric of Economics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books and Harvester Press.
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38.
Oster, U. (2010). Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions?Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 727–763.
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S., & McEnery, T. (2004). The UCREL semantic analysis system. In
Proceedings of the workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic labeling for NLP tasks in association with the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004)
(pp. 7–12). Paris, France: European Language Resources Association.
Stickles, E., Dodge, E., & Hong, J. (2014, November). A construction-driven, MetaNet-based approach to metaphor extraction and corpus analysis. Paper presented at the
12th meeting of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (CSDL 12)
, Santa Barbara, California.
Sullivan, K. (2009). Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.) Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers.
Tang, X., Qu, W., Chen, X., & Yu, S. (2010, December). Automatic metaphor recognition based on semantic relation patterns. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Asian Language Processing
, Harbin, China.
Wulf, S. (2010). Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. London: Continuum International Publishing.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Almaghlouth, Shrouq & Leena Alotaibi
2024. HEART metaphors in economic discourse corpora: conceptual evidence and translation insight. Cogent Arts & Humanities 11:1
Sullivan, Karen
2023. Three levels of framing. WIREs Cognitive Science 14:5
Tatsenko, Nataliia, Vitalii Stepanov & Hanna Shcherbak
2020. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF POLITICS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 8:2 ► pp. 248 ff.
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 january 2025. 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.