Cover not available

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. 91–112

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Linguistic metaphor identification in Dutch

 | , , The Netherlandsformerly affiliated with VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.05pas
Article outline
  • 5.1Introduction: Metaphor in Dutch discourse
  • 5.2Operational issues
    • 5.2.1The corpus: News and conversation
    • 5.2.2Van dale dictionary and its implications
  • 5.3Linguistic issues: Complex words and fixed expressions
    • 5.3.1Separable complex verbs
    • 5.3.2Polywords
  • 5.4Dutch metaphor analysis: Agreement and disagreement
    • 5.4.1Dutch discourse and agreement
    • 5.4.2Dutch discourse and disagreement
  • 5.5Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (17)
References
Aarts, F. G. A. M., & Wekker. H. C. (1987). A contrastive grammar of English and Dutch/Contrastieve grammatica Engels/Nederlands. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blom, C. (2005). Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (2002a). Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, 301–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation. In N. Deh, R. Jackendoff, A. Macintyre & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle explorations (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 105–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Den Boom, T., & Geeraerts, D. (Eds.) (2005). Van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. Utrecht & Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie. (Electronic version)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J., & Van der Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen & Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers / Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (1998). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N. (2002). The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In P. Peters, P. Collins & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105–112). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Biernacka, E., Dorst, A. G., Kaal, A. A., López-Rodríguez, I., & Pasma, T. (2010). Pragglejaz in practice: Finding metaphorically used words in natural discourse. In: G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in the real world (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, A., Busser, G. J., Daelemans, W., & Canisius, S. (2007). An efficient memory-based morphosyntactic tagger and parser for Dutch. In F. van Eynde, P. Dirix, I. Schuurman & V. Vandeghinste (Eds.), Selected papers of the 17th Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Meeting (99–114). Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructiegrammatica en ‘usage based’ taalkunde. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10, 197–222.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Declercq, Jana & Lotte van Poppel
2023. Coding Metaphors in Interaction: A Study Protocol and Reflection on Validity and Reliability Challenges. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22 DOI logo
KALIN SALI, Mesout
2022. Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretiminde kullanılan ders materyalindeki kavramsal metaforların tespitine yönelik bir çalışma. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :31 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue