1,720,967 research outputs found
Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world
No full textIn 2010, Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr and Pasma published a detailed guidebook for a method for linguistic metaphor identification, widely known as “MIPVU” (Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit) – an expanded version of the earlier Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) and the ‘Pragglejaz’ procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007).
MIPVU provides a step-by-step protocol for identifying metaphors in discourse in a valid, transparent, and replicable way. It advocates the use of corpus-based dictionaries as tools to help identify both clear and borderline cases of three types of linguistic metaphor:
1) indirect metaphor, when there is a contrast between contextual and basic senses that may be attributed to comparison
2) direct metaphor, when there is no contrast between contextual and basic senses despite an underlying metaphorical reasoning
3) implicit metaphor, due to an underlying cohesive link in the discourse referring to an identifiable metaphor
Since its publication, the method has been adopted in numerous master and doctoral theses, books, articles and conference papers, and has also been the focus of summer and winter schools for PhD candidates and postdocs at the Metaphor Lab Amsterdam.
Both MIP and MIPVU were originally developed for linguistic metaphor identification in English discourse. Given the idiosyncrasies of individual languages, the application of either procedure to languages other than English necessarily entails adjustments to the procedure, and participants at linguistic conferences and Metaphor Lab schools have clearly expressed the need for a metaphor identification procedure that may be applied to languages beyond English.
The volume "Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world" aims to explore metaphor identification in a wide variety of languages and language families. Its primary aims are to discuss the challenges involved in applying MIP or MIPVU to languages other than English, and to offer practical advice and guidelines enabling researchers to identify linguistic metaphors in multiple languages in a valid and replicable way. Although able to be read independently, this volume – written by metaphor scholars from around the world – will be the ideal companion volume to the John Benjamins book "A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU" (Steen et al., 2010). It is intended as a practical guidebook that identifies and discusses procedural challenges of metaphor identification across languages, thus better enabling researchers to reliably identify metaphor in a multitude of languages.
This OSF-repository contains additional information for some of the chapters in the volume, including language-specific MIP(VU) protocols, files used for reliability testing, and additional references.
The volume:
Chapter 1 MIPVU in multiple languages
(Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr, Susan Nacey, W. Gudrun Reijnierse and Gerard J. Steen)
Chapter 2 MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words
(Gerard J. Steen, Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr and Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 3 What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you
(even though it mostly does)
(Susan Nacey, Tina Krennmayr, Aletta G. Dorst, and W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 4 Linguistic metaphor identificaton in French
(W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 5 Linguistic metaphor identification in Dutch
(Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 6 Linguistic metaphor identification in German
(J. Berenike Herrmann, Karola Woll and Aletta G. Dorst)
Chapter 7 Linguistic metaphor identification in Scandinavian
(Susan Nacey, Linda Greve and Marlene Johansson Falck)
Chapter 8 Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian
(Justina Urbonaitė, Inesa Šeškauskienė and Jurga Cibulskienė)
Chapter 9 Linguistic metaphor identification in Polish
(Joanna Marhula and Maciej Rosiński)
Chapter 10 Linguistic metaphor identification in Serbian
(Ksenija Bogetić, Andrijana Broćić, and Katarina Rasulić)
Chapter 11 Linguistic Metaphor Identification in Uzbek
(Sıla Gen Kaya)
Chapter 12 Linguistic metaphor Identification in Chinese
(Ben Pin-Yun Wang, Xiaofei Lu, Chan-Chia Hsu, Eric Po-Chung Lin and Haiyang Ai)
Chapter 13 Linguistic metaphor identification in Sesotho
(Nts’oeu Raphael Seepheephe, Beatrice Ekanjume-Ilongo and Motlalepula Raphael Thuube)
Chapter 14 Linguistic metaphor identification in English as a Lingua Franca
(Fiona MacArthur)Chapter 15 Afterword: Some reflections on MIPVU across languages
(Elena Semino)
About the author
Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world
No full textIn 2010, Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr and Pasma published a detailed guidebook for a method for linguistic metaphor identification, widely known as “MIPVU” (Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit) – an expanded version of the earlier Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) and the ‘Pragglejaz’ procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007).
MIPVU provides a step-by-step protocol for identifying metaphors in discourse in a valid, transparent, and replicable way. It advocates the use of corpus-based dictionaries as tools to help identify both clear and borderline cases of three types of linguistic metaphor:
1) indirect metaphor, when there is a contrast between contextual and basic senses that may be attributed to comparison
2) direct metaphor, when there is no contrast between contextual and basic senses despite an underlying metaphorical reasoning
3) implicit metaphor, due to an underlying cohesive link in the discourse referring to an identifiable metaphor
Since its publication, the method has been adopted in numerous master and doctoral theses, books, articles and conference papers, and has also been the focus of summer and winter schools for PhD candidates and postdocs at the Metaphor Lab Amsterdam.
Both MIP and MIPVU were originally developed for linguistic metaphor identification in English discourse. Given the idiosyncrasies of individual languages, the application of either procedure to languages other than English necessarily entails adjustments to the procedure, and participants at linguistic conferences and Metaphor Lab schools have clearly expressed the need for a metaphor identification procedure that may be applied to languages beyond English.
The volume "Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world" aims to explore metaphor identification in a wide variety of languages and language families. Its primary aims are to discuss the challenges involved in applying MIP or MIPVU to languages other than English, and to offer practical advice and guidelines enabling researchers to identify linguistic metaphors in multiple languages in a valid and replicable way. Although able to be read independently, this volume – written by metaphor scholars from around the world – will be the ideal companion volume to the John Benjamins book "A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU" (Steen et al., 2010). It is intended as a practical guidebook that identifies and discusses procedural challenges of metaphor identification across languages, thus better enabling researchers to reliably identify metaphor in a multitude of languages.
This OSF-repository contains additional information for some of the chapters in the volume, including language-specific MIP(VU) protocols, files used for reliability testing, and additional references.
The volume:
Chapter 1 MIPVU in multiple languages
(Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr, Susan Nacey, W. Gudrun Reijnierse and Gerard J. Steen)
Chapter 2 MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words
(Gerard J. Steen, Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr and Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 3 What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you
(even though it mostly does)
(Susan Nacey, Tina Krennmayr, Aletta G. Dorst, and W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 4 Linguistic metaphor identificaton in French
(W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 5 Linguistic metaphor identification in Dutch
(Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 6 Linguistic metaphor identification in German
(J. Berenike Herrmann, Karola Woll and Aletta G. Dorst)
Chapter 7 Linguistic metaphor identification in Scandinavian
(Susan Nacey, Linda Greve and Marlene Johansson Falck)
Chapter 8 Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian
(Justina Urbonaitė, Inesa Šeškauskienė and Jurga Cibulskienė)
Chapter 9 Linguistic metaphor identification in Polish
(Joanna Marhula and Maciej Rosiński)
Chapter 10 Linguistic metaphor identification in Serbian
(Ksenija Bogetić, Andrijana Broćić, and Katarina Rasulić)
Chapter 11 Linguistic Metaphor Identification in Uzbek
(Sıla Gen Kaya)
Chapter 12 Linguistic metaphor Identification in Chinese
(Ben Pin-Yun Wang, Xiaofei Lu, Chan-Chia Hsu, Eric Po-Chung Lin and Haiyang Ai)
Chapter 13 Linguistic metaphor identification in Sesotho
(Nts’oeu Raphael Seepheephe, Beatrice Ekanjume-Ilongo and Motlalepula Raphael Thuube)
Chapter 14 Linguistic metaphor identification in English as a Lingua Franca
(Fiona MacArthur)Chapter 15 Afterword: Some reflections on MIPVU across languages
(Elena Semino)
About the author
Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world
No full textIn 2010, Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr and Pasma published a detailed guidebook for a method for linguistic metaphor identification, widely known as “MIPVU” (Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit) – an expanded version of the earlier Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) and the ‘Pragglejaz’ procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007).
MIPVU provides a step-by-step protocol for identifying metaphors in discourse in a valid, transparent, and replicable way. It advocates the use of corpus-based dictionaries as tools to help identify both clear and borderline cases of three types of linguistic metaphor:
1) indirect metaphor, when there is a contrast between contextual and basic senses that may be attributed to comparison
2) direct metaphor, when there is no contrast between contextual and basic senses despite an underlying metaphorical reasoning
3) implicit metaphor, due to an underlying cohesive link in the discourse referring to an identifiable metaphor
Since its publication, the method has been adopted in numerous master and doctoral theses, books, articles and conference papers, and has also been the focus of summer and winter schools for PhD candidates and postdocs at the Metaphor Lab Amsterdam.
Both MIP and MIPVU were originally developed for linguistic metaphor identification in English discourse. Given the idiosyncrasies of individual languages, the application of either procedure to languages other than English necessarily entails adjustments to the procedure, and participants at linguistic conferences and Metaphor Lab schools have clearly expressed the need for a metaphor identification procedure that may be applied to languages beyond English.
The volume "Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world" aims to explore metaphor identification in a wide variety of languages and language families. Its primary aims are to discuss the challenges involved in applying MIP or MIPVU to languages other than English, and to offer practical advice and guidelines enabling researchers to identify linguistic metaphors in multiple languages in a valid and replicable way. Although able to be read independently, this volume – written by metaphor scholars from around the world – will be the ideal companion volume to the John Benjamins book "A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU" (Steen et al., 2010). It is intended as a practical guidebook that identifies and discusses procedural challenges of metaphor identification across languages, thus better enabling researchers to reliably identify metaphor in a multitude of languages.
This OSF-repository contains additional information for some of the chapters in the volume, including language-specific MIP(VU) protocols, files used for reliability testing, and additional references.
The volume:
Chapter 1 MIPVU in multiple languages
(Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr, Susan Nacey, W. Gudrun Reijnierse and Gerard J. Steen)
Chapter 2 MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words
(Gerard J. Steen, Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr and Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 3 What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you
(even though it mostly does)
(Susan Nacey, Tina Krennmayr, Aletta G. Dorst, and W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 4 Linguistic metaphor identificaton in French
(W. Gudrun Reijnierse)
Chapter 5 Linguistic metaphor identification in Dutch
(Tryntje Pasma)
Chapter 6 Linguistic metaphor identification in German
(J. Berenike Herrmann, Karola Woll and Aletta G. Dorst)
Chapter 7 Linguistic metaphor identification in Scandinavian
(Susan Nacey, Linda Greve and Marlene Johansson Falck)
Chapter 8 Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian
(Justina Urbonaitė, Inesa Šeškauskienė and Jurga Cibulskienė)
Chapter 9 Linguistic metaphor identification in Polish
(Joanna Marhula and Maciej Rosiński)
Chapter 10 Linguistic metaphor identification in Serbian
(Ksenija Bogetić, Andrijana Broćić, and Katarina Rasulić)
Chapter 11 Linguistic Metaphor Identification in Uzbek
(Sıla Gen Kaya)
Chapter 12 Linguistic metaphor Identification in Chinese
(Ben Pin-Yun Wang, Xiaofei Lu, Chan-Chia Hsu, Eric Po-Chung Lin and Haiyang Ai)
Chapter 13 Linguistic metaphor identification in Sesotho
(Nts’oeu Raphael Seepheephe, Beatrice Ekanjume-Ilongo and Motlalepula Raphael Thuube)
Chapter 14 Linguistic metaphor identification in English as a Lingua Franca
(Fiona MacArthur)Chapter 15 Afterword: Some reflections on MIPVU across languages
(Elena Semino)
About the author
Metaphor in Learner English. Corpora and Language Learners. By Susan Nacey Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2013. xi + 277 pp. ISBN 9789027202062. [Metaphor in Language, Cognition& Communication 2]
Get PDFMetaphor in Learner English by Susan Nacey is a detailed comparative corpus- based study of metaphorical expressions by advanced learners of English and native English-speaking students. The book, which is structured in three parts, devotes Part I to an analysis of the theoretical foundations of metaphor and its de- scription in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2009). Part II provides a detailed description of the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) and its contributions to the systematic identifica- tion and analysis of metaphor in learners' texts. Finally, part III offers a quan- titative examination of learner corpus data, explores and refines the controver- sial concept of creativity and addresses the relation between novelty and error in learners' metaphorical language
Metaphor or not Metaphor: Is that the question?
Get PDFThis review concerns the volume Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages. MIPVU around the world, edited by Susan Nacey, Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr and W. Gudrun Reijnierse, published by John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 2019
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
