1887
Volume 21, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.04led
2016-11-28
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmad, K
    (2005, June). Terminology in text. Paper presented at the Tuscan Word Centre Workshop , Siena, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boers, F
    (1997) “No pain, no gain” in a free market rhetoric: A test for cognitive semantics?Metaphor & Symbol, 12(4), 231–241. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1204_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_2 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.10boe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.10boe [Google Scholar]
  5. Brezina, V. , McEnery, T. , & Wattam, S
    (2015) Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre [Google Scholar]
  6. Charteris-Black, J
    (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheng, W
    (2012) Exploring Corpus Linguistics. England: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulson, S. , & Oakley, T
    (2005) Blended and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M
    (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present [Online Corpus].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 14(2), 159–190. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
  13. Deignan, A
    (2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Figurative language in discourse. In H.J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp.437–462). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Demmen, J. , Seminoi, E. , Demjén, Z. , Koller, V. , Hardie, A. , Rayson, P. , & Payne, S
    (2015) A computer-assisted study of the use of violence metaphors for cancer and end of life by patients, family carers and health professionals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(20), 205–231. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.03dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.03dem [Google Scholar]
  16. Desagulier, G
    (2014) Visualizing distances in a set of near synonyms: Rather, quite, fairly, and pretty . In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.145–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.06des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.06des [Google Scholar]
  17. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M
    (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fausey, C.M. , & Matlock, T
    (2011) Can grammar win elections?Political Psychology, 32(4), 563–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9221.2010.00802.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00802.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore, C.J
    (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibbs, R.W
    (2010) The wonderful, chaotic, creative, heroic, challenging world of researching and applying metaphor. In G. Low , A. Deignan , L. Cameron , & Z. Todd (Eds.)Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World (pp.1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.26.01gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.26.01gib [Google Scholar]
  22. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibbs, R. , & Nayak, N
    (1989) Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100–138. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90004‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90004-2 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. doi: 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kövecses, Z
    (2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, G
    (2002) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2009) The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G. , & Wehling, E
    (2012) The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. New York, NY: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. L’Hôte, E
    (2014) Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137427397
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137427397 [Google Scholar]
  32. Matlock, T
    (2012) Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100(6), 478–483. doi: 10.1511/2012.99.478
    https://doi.org/10.1511/2012.99.478 [Google Scholar]
  33. McCloskey, D.N
    (1986) The Rhetoric of Economics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books and Harvester Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Musolff, A
    (2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2010.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.023 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rayson, P
    (2008) From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmid, H
    (2000) English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  39. Shenker-Osorio, A
    (2012) Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Public Affairs.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shutova, E. , Teufel, S. , & Korhonen, A
    (2013) Computational Linguistics, 39(2), 301–353. doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00124
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00124 [Google Scholar]
  41. Skorczynska, H. , & Deignan, A
    (2006) Readership and purpose in the choice of economics metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(2), 87–104. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms2102_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2102_2 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stefanowitsch, A
    (2005) The function of metaphor: Developing a corpus-based perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 161–198. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  43. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wulf, S
    (2010) Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. London: Continuum International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.04led
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error