MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words …

1 MIP: A Method for IdentifyingMetaphorically used Words in DiscoursePragglejaz GroupThis article presents an explicit Method that can be reliably employed to identifymetaphorically used Words in discourse. Our aim is to provide metaphor scholarswith a tool that may be flexibly applied to many research contexts. We present the metaphor identification procedure (MIP), followed by an example of how theprocedure can be applied to Identifying Metaphorically used Words in 1 text. Wethen suggest a format for reporting the results of MIP, and present the data fromour case study describing the empirical reliability of the procedure, discuss severalcomplications associated with using the procedure in practice, and then brieflycompare MIP to other proposals on metaphor identification. The final section ofthe paper suggests ways that MIP may be employed in disciplinary and interdisci-plinary studies of of the major developments in metaphor research in the last several years hasbeen the focus on Identifying and explicating metaphoric language in real dis-course.

2 Isolated constructed examples, often seen in linguistic research, or stimulicreated by psychologists for experimental purposes, provide important materialsfor studying the structure and functions of metaphor. Yet making claims about theubiquity and realistic understanding of metaphoric language demands that meta-phor scholars explore metaphor in the wild as speakers and writers produce it invarying primary difficulty with this line of work, however, is that researchers of-ten differ in their intuitions about what constitutes a metaphoric word or scholars often do not provide criteria in their empirical investigationsMETAPHOR AND SYMBOL,22(1), 1 39 Copyright 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, should be addressed to Gerard Steen, Department of English Language and Cul-ture, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Box 7161, 1007 MC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. specifying what is, and what is not, metaphorical, and not surprisingly focuson different aspects of metaphorical language depending on their own theoreticalorientation and research purpose .

3 Variability in intuitions, and lack of precisionabout what counts as a metaphor, makes it quite difficult to compare differentempirical analyses. More important, the lack of agreed criteria for metaphoridentification complicates any evaluation of theoretical claims about the fre-quency of metaphor, its organization in discourse, and possible relations be-tween metaphoric language and metaphoric thought (see Cameron, 2003;Semino, Heywood, & Short, 2004).As a group of metaphor scholars, from a variety of academic disciplines, wehave attempted to create an explicit, reliable, and flexible Method for identifyingmetaphorically used Words in spoken and written language. This article presentsour procedure, and outlines the ways it may be used by metaphor scholars fordifferent empirical research. The procedure aims to establish, for each lexicalunit in a stretch of discourse, whether its use in the particular context can be de-scribed as metaphorical.

4 Our procedure adopts a maximal, and not a minimal,approach such that a wide range of Words may be considered as conveying meta-phorical meaning based on their use in context. We require that a clear decisionbe made about whether a word conveys, or does not convey, a metaphoricalmeaning, although we recognize that Words , and language more generally, differin the degree to which they express metaphoricity. Although we make no claimsas to whether actual writers or speakers intended their specific Words to expressmetaphorical meanings, our procedure may be viewed as providing a reliable re-search Method for determining whether Words in contexts convey are not concerned, at this time, with Identifying metaphorical utterances orwith finding conventional linguistic metaphors that may arise from postulated con-ceptual metaphors. Furthermore, we do not claim that our identification procedurereflects what ordinary listeners or readers do when they judge that some word isused Metaphorically .

5 Finally, we emphasize that any decision not to mark a word asmetaphorical in context does not imply the word is being used literally ( , theword may express metonymic, hyperbolic or some other type of figurative mean-ing). Our general purpose is only to provide a research tool that is relatively simpleto use and flexible for adaptation by scholars interested in the metaphorical contentof realistic next is the metaphor identification procedure (MIP), followed byan example of how the procedure can be applied. We then propose a format for re-porting the results of metaphor identification using MIP, and present findings fromour case study on two texts. Following this, we discuss several issues associatedwith using MIP in practice given the varying goals of metaphor researchers, andbriefly compare MIP to other proposals on metaphor identification. The final sec-2 PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP tion suggests ways that MIP may be employed in disciplinary and interdisciplinarystudies of AND EXPLICATIONThe MIP is as follows:1.

6 Read the entire text discourse to establish a general understanding of Determine the lexical units in the text discourse3. (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is,how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evokedby the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes beforeand after the lexical unit.(b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporarymeaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For ourpurposes, basic meanings tend to be More concrete; what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel,smell, and taste. Related to bodily action. More precise (as opposed to vague) Historically meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of thelexical unit.(c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current contemporary meaning inother contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextualmeaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood incomparison with If yes, mark the lexical unit as now demonstrate the MIP by applying it to the first sentence of a newspaper ar-ticle from The Independent (internet edition) titled Sonia Gandhi stakes claimfor top job with denunciation of Vajpayee (see Appendix).

7 A reading of the wholearticle, step 1, reveals that it is concerned with contemporary Indian politics, andparticularly with Sonia Ghandi s controversial role as a politician. The first sen-tence focuses specifically on Ghandi s difficulties in being accepted by Indians asa political leader and potential future Prime Minister:For years, Sonia Gandhi has struggled to convince Indians that she is fit to wear themantle of the political dynasty into which she married, let alone to become IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE3At step 2, the lexical units in the sentence are identified as follows, with slashes in-dicating the boundaries between lexical units:/ For / years /, Sonia Gandhi / has / struggled / to / convince / Indians / that / she / is / fit/ to /wear/ the / mantle / of / the / political / dynasty / into / which / she / married /, letalone / to / become / premier /.We discuss in greater detail below the issue of choosing an appropriate unit of anal-ysis, the rationale for our approach to lexical units, and our use of a dictionary inthis process.

8 For the moment, we have subsumed more than one word under a sin-gle lexical unit in the case of proper names ( ,Sonia Ghandi) and in those caseswhere the meaning of a whole expression cannot be arrived at via the compositionof the meaning of the parts ( ,let alone).At step 3 we consider each lexical unit in turn, starting from the beginning of thesentence. For each lexical unit, we outline our decisions for each of the three partsof step 3 in our procedure, and report our final decision as to whether the unit isused Metaphorically in the context of the article, step (a)contextual meaning: In this context, the preposition for indicates temporalduration, that is, it introduces a noun phrase (years) that indicates the period oftime spanned by the action/process referred to by the main verb phrase in the sen-tence (has struggled).(b)basic meaning: The preposition for can be used to introduce the benefi-ciary or recipient of an action, often involving the transfer of a physical entity fromone person to another ( ,I ve brought a cup of tea for you).

9 This could be re-garded as the basic meaning of the preposition. This is the first sense of for in thecontemporary dictionary used (discussed later).(c)contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning con-trasts with the basic meaning. However, we have not found a way in which the con-textual meaning can be understood by comparison with the basic used ?Noyears(a)contextual meaning: In this context, years indicates a long period of timeencompassing several calendar years. The use of years emphasizes the length ofthe relevant period of time, rather than demarcating it with any precision.(b)basic meaning: The most basic meaning ofyearis the cyclical period oftime in which the earth completes a full revolution around the sun, consisting of4 PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP365 or 366 days (although the precise number of days is not necessarily part of thebasic meaning).(c)contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning is veryclosely related to the basic meaning and does not significantly contrast with used ?

10 Ghandi(a)contextual meaning: The proper name refers to a specific, uniquely identifi-able individual in a particular historical and geographical context.(b)basic meaning: The proper name does not have a more basic meaning.(c)contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning is thesame as the basic used ? (a)contextual meaning: In this context, has is the operator in the verb phrase has struggled, where it signals agreement with the singular grammatical subject Sonia Ghandi, and expresses an aspectual meaning, that is, it indicates that therelevant action/process started in the past and has not yet been completed.(b)basic meaning: As an auxiliary verb ,to havedoes not have a more basicmeaning. As a lexical verb ,to havehas the more basic meaning of possession(prototypically involving physical objects).(c)contextual meaning versus basic meaning: If we considerto haveas an aux-iliary verb , the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning. If we considerthe lexemeto haveas a whole, the contextual meaning contrasts with a more basicmeaning.