In:Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages: MIPVU around the world
Edited by Susan Nacey, Aletta G. Dorst, Tina Krennmayr and W. Gudrun Reijnierse
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 22] 2019
► pp. 41–67
Chapter 3What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you (even though it mostly
does)
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.03nac
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.03nac
Article outline
- 3.1Introduction
- Part 1: Practicalities of MIPVU
- 3.2How do I determine what comprises a lexical unit?
- 3.3How do I determine a ‘more basic meaning’ of a lexical unit?
- 3.3.1The ‘it feels basic to me’ pitfall
- 3.3.2The ‘but there has to be a single basic meaning’ pitfall
- 3.3.3The ‘no contextual meaning’ pitfall
- 3.3.4The ‘grammatical category / word class’ pitfall
- 3.4How do I go about contrasting and comparing meanings?
- 3.5Which tools should I use to annotate my dataset?
- 3.5.1Initial independent MIPVU analysis
- 3.5.2Further comparative MIPVU analysis
- 3.5.3Statistical analysis of MIPVU results
- 3.6Reliability testing
- Part 2: Choosing your approach and your data
- 3.7Decision 1: Quantitative, qualitative, or both?
- 3.8Decision 2: Which (elements in) texts and why?
- 3.9Concluding thoughts
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (24)
Archer, D., Wilson, A., & Rayson, P. (2002). Introduction to the USAS category system. [URL]
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2003): Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning
devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 18(3), 149–160.
Canty, A., & Ripley, B. (2015). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions, R package version
1.3-20. [URL]
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 106–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dorst, A. G., & Reijnierse, W. G. (2015). A dictionary gives definitions, not decision. Response 1
to ‘On using a dictionary to identify the basic senses of
words’. Metaphor and the Social World 5(1), 137–144.
Dorst, A. G., Reijnierse, W. G., & Venhuizen, G. (2013). One small step for MIP towards automated metaphor
identification? Formulating general rules to determine basic
meanings in large-scale approaches to metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World 3(1), 77–99.
Gamer, M., Lemon, J., & Singh, I. F. P. (2012). irr: Various Coefficients of Inter-rater Reliability and
Agreement, R package version 0.84. [URL]
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology, Seventh Ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth.
Koller, V. (2002). “A shotgun wedding”: Co-occurrence of war and marriage
metaphors in mergers and acquisitions discourse, Metaphor and Symbol 17(3), 179–203.
Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2017). VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. In J. Pustejovsky & N. E. Ide (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 1053–1072). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Lew, R. (2013). Identifying, ordering and defining senses. In H. Jackson (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to lexicography (pp. 284–302). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words
in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 1–39.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate
metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics 2(2), 129–147.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S., & Rayson, P. (2018). Metaphor, cancer and the end of life. New York, NY: Routledge.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five
steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, gaps (pp. 197–226). Berlin: Mouton du Gruyter.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to
MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Macha, Victoria, Jeanette Wing & Theo Andrew
2026. Using Metaphor Analysis to Explore the Theoretical Underpinnings of Agile Software Development: Towards a More Sustainable Software Development Environment. In South African Computer Science and Information Systems Research Trends [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2583], ► pp. 35 ff.
Garlepow, Linnea, Nina Funke & Barbara Ann Güldenring
Lawal, Tolulola
Andreolli, Giorgia
2024. A qualitative study of endometriosis-related pain. Metaphor and the Social World 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lacey Okonski
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Thomas Wiben Jensen
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Paula Pérez Sobrino
Jódar-Sánchez, Jose Antonio
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 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.