In:Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 149–174
Chapter 6The lexical vs. corpus-based method in the study of metaphors
Published online: 6 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.07kov
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.07kov
In the past 15–20 years, there has been an increasing tendency to study metaphors found in real data (large corpora, specific discourses, conversations, etc.). What became known as “corpus-linguistic methods” of metaphor study, distinguish themselves from a prior way of studying metaphor that is often labeled “intuitive,” “subjective,” and “eclectic.”
In this paper, we propose an updated version of this “intuitive” method, which is termed here the “lexical approach.” We compare and evaluate this approach with the corpus-based one, making use of the concept of SURPRISE (see Kövecses, 2015) for demonstrative purposes.
We conclude with some methodological suggestions, in which we argue that the two approaches reinforce and complement one another, toward the common goal of advancing metaphor theory.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Describing the lexical approach
- 3.Surprise in the lexical approach
- 3.1Lexical structure
- 3.2Metaphors of surprise in the lexical approach
- 3.3Metonymies of surprise in the lexical approach
- 4.Surprise in a corpus-based approach
- 4.1Metaphors of surprise – a corpus-based approach
- 4.2Metonymies of surprise – a corpus-based approach
- 5.Challenges of the two approaches
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1Number of metaphors
- 6.2Conventionalization
- 6.3Types and tokens
- 6.4Presence of target term
- 6.5Synonyms
- 6.6Polysemy
- 7.Conclusions
?ack? Notes References Sources
References (29)
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (Eds.) (2010). Metaphor analysis. Research practice in applied linguistics, social science and humanities. London: Equinox.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl, & H-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2015). Surprise as a conceptual category. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 270–290.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 64–105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
www.merriam-webster.com
www.oxforddictionaries.com
www.yourdictionary.com
www.thefreedictionary.com
www.learnersdictionary.com
www.macmillandictionary.com
www.learnersdictionary.com
www.collinsdictionary.com
www.corpus.byu.edu/coca
Cited by (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Allawama, Ashraf, Aseel Zibin & Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh
Digonnet, Rémi
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman M. & Aseel Zibin
Hultso, Olena-Anna & Olena Levchenko
Kahumburu, Monica & Yo Matsumoto
Zoltán Kövecses, Réka Benczes, Anna Rommel & Veronika Szelid
Ruiz-Moneva, María Ángeles
2024. Review of Bagli (2021): Tastes we live by. The linguistic conceptualisation of taste in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 605 ff.
Yali, Zhao, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor & Khazriyati Salehuddin
Aseel Zibin, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh & Marwan Jarrah
Aseel Zibin & Olga A. Solopova
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
Bosman, Nerina & Elsabé Taljard
MÁTHÉ, Zsuzsa
Torres Soler, Julio
Kövecses, Zoltán
2019. Perception and metaphor. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 327 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 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.
