Abstract
This paper introduces the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (DMIP), a method for the systematic and reliable identification of potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. We take a semiotic approach to deliberate metaphor, and propose that, on a semiotic level, the distinction between potentially deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor hinges on the question whether the source domain functions as a distinct referent in the meaning of a metaphorical utterance. We present DMIP and illustrate the procedure in practice on the basis of the analysis of a series of real-world examples. We also report on inter-rater reliability testing. Finally, we discuss the implications of adopting DMIP as a tool for deliberate-metaphor analysis, and point out how this approach can contribute to the further development of Deliberate Metaphor Theory.
Highlights
This paper introduces the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (DMIP), a method for the systematic and reliable identification of potentially deliberate metaphor in language use
Cohen’s kappa for this test indicates ‘‘substantial agreement’’, as well (j = .73; Landis and Koch 1977, p. 165). These results indicate that the identification of potentially deliberate metaphor in language use can be carried out in a reliable way by means of the method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor (DMIP), which was introduced in this paper
We introduced DMIP, a reliable step-by-step method for the identification of potentially deliberate metaphor in language use
Summary
In DMT (e.g., Steen 2008, 2011b, c, 2015), metaphor is seen as a matter of conceptual structures (metaphor in thought) expressed in linguistic forms (metaphor in language), and as a matter of communication between language users (metaphor in communication). The metaphor can be taken to introduce a new perspective on the target domain, and the source domain is needed as a distinct referent in the state of affairs designated by the utterance This makes ‘cacophony’ a potentially deliberate metaphor. To determine whether ‘headlamps’ counts as a case of potentially deliberate metaphor, we examine whether the example contains one or more cues suggesting that the source domain plays a role in the referential meaning of the utterance. To determine whether the MRW ‘collapsed’ counts as a case of potentially deliberate metaphor, we examine whether there are cues suggesting that the source domain of buildings plays a role in the referential meaning of the utterance. The referential meaning of the utterance can be spelled out as follows: ‘‘a small, investment business called Barlow Clowes had suddenly stopped existing’’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
