Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 21:4 (2016) ► pp.527–558
Finding source domain triggers
How corpus methodologies aid in the analysis of conceptual metaphor
Published online: 6 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.04led
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.04led
Much recent research on figurative language and conceptual metaphor theory derives from corpus examination, and analysts are increasingly focused on the development of quantificational tools to reveal co-occurrence patterns indicative of source and target domain associations. Some mappings between source and target are transparent and appear in collocation patterns in natural language data. However, other metaphors, especially those that structure abstract processes, are more complex because the target domain is lexically divorced from the source. Using economic discourse as a case study, this paper introduces new techniques directed at the quantitative evaluation of metaphorical occurrence when target and source relationships are nonobvious. Constellations of source-domain triggers are identified in the data and shown to disproportionately emerge in topic-specific discourse.
References (46)
Ahmad, K. (2005, June). Terminology in text. Paper presented at the
Tuscan Word Centre Workshop
, Siena, Italy.
Babarczy, A., Bencze, I., Fekete, I., & Simon, E. (2010). The automatic identification of conceptual metaphors in Hungarian texts: A corpus-based analysis. In N. Bel, B. Daille, & A. Vasiljevs (Eds.), LREC 2010 Workshop on Methods for the Automatic Acquisition of Language Resources: Proceedings (pp. 30–37). Malta.
Boers, F. (1997). “No pain, no gain” in a free market rhetoric: A test for cognitive semantics? Metaphor & Symbol, 12(4), 231–241.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse. In W.A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 115–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blended and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536.
David, O., Dodge, E., Hong, J., Stickles, E., & Sweetser, E. (2014, September). Building the MetaNet metaphor repository: The natural symbiosis of metaphor analysis and construction grammar. Paper presented at the
8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG 8)
, Osnabrück, Germany.
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present [Online Corpus].
. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 14(2), 159–190.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2012). Figurative language in discourse. In H.J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 437–462). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Demmen, J., Seminoi, E., Demjén, Z., Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Payne, S. (2015). A computer-assisted study of the use of violence metaphors for cancer and end of life by patients, family carers and health professionals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(20), 205–231.
Desagulier, G. (2014). Visualizing distances in a set of near synonyms: Rather, quite, fairly, and pretty
. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.145–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dodge, E., Hong, J., & Stickles, E. (2015, June). Deep semantic automatic metaphor analysis. Paper presented at The
Third Workshop on Metaphor in NLP
, Denver, Colorado.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fausey, C.M., & Matlock, T. (2011). Can grammar win elections? Political Psychology, 32(4), 563–574.
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Gibbs, R.W. (2010). The wonderful, chaotic, creative, heroic, challenging world of researching and applying metaphor. In G. Low, A. Deignan, L. Cameron, & Z. Todd (Eds.) Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World (pp.1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R., & Nayak, N. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100–138.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovár, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychly, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 1–30.
Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Semino, E. (2008). Using a semantic annotation tool for the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Metaphorik.de, 15(1), 141–160.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
. (2009). The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2012). The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. New York, NY: Free Press.
L’Hôte, E. (2014). Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100(6), 478–483.
Oster, U. (2010). Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions? Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 727–763.
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S., & McEnery, T. (2004). The UCREL semantic analysis system. In
Proceedings of the workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic labeling for NLP tasks in association with the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004)
(pp. 7–12). Paris, France: European Language Resources Association.
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549.
Schmid, H. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shenker-Osorio, A. (2012). Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Public Affairs.
Skorczynska, H., & Deignan, A. (2006). Readership and purpose in the choice of economics metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(2), 87–104.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2005). The function of metaphor: Developing a corpus-based perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 161–198.
Stickles, E., Dodge, E., & Hong, J. (2014, November). A construction-driven, MetaNet-based approach to metaphor extraction and corpus analysis. Paper presented at the
12th meeting of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (CSDL 12)
, Santa Barbara, California.
Sullivan, K. (2009). Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.) Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Nagy C., Katalin, Enikő Németh T. & Zsuzsanna Németh
Almaghlouth, Shrouq & Leena Alotaibi
Tatsenko, Nataliia, Vitalii Stepanov & Hanna Shcherbak
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
