Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 10:1 (2012) ► pp.1–48
Optimizing the analysis of metaphor in discourse
How to make the most of qualitative software and find a good research design
Published online: 15 June 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.10.1.01kim
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.10.1.01kim
This article presents a software-based methodology for studying metaphor in discourse, mainly within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). Despite a welcome recent swing towards methodological reflexivity, a detailed explication of the pros and cons of different procedures is still in order as far as qualitative research (i.e. a context-sensitive manual coding of a text corpus) is concerned. Qualitatively oriented scholars have to make difficult decisions revolving around the general research design, the transfer of linguistic theory into method, good workflow management, and the aimed at scope of analysis. My first task is to pinpoint typical tasks and demonstrate how they are optimally dealt with by using qualitative annotation software like ATLAS.ti. Software not only streamlines metaphor tagging itself, it systematizes the interpretive work from grouping text items into systematic/conceptual metaphor sets, via data surveys and checks, to quantitative comparisons and a cohesion-based analysis. My second task is to illustrate how a good research design can provide a step-wise procedure, offer systematic validation checks, keep the code system slim and many analytic options open. When we aim at complex data searches and want to handle high metaphor diversity I recommend compositional coding, i.e. tagging source and target domains separately (instead of adopting a “one mapping-one code” strategy). Furthermore, by tagging metaphors for image-schematic and rich semantic source domains in parallel, i.e. two-tier coding, we get multiple options for grouping metaphors into systematic sets.
Cited by (26)
Cited by 26 other publications
de Laat, Kim
Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi & Antonio José Silvestre-López
Obasi, Jane Chinelo & Amarachi Ugochinyelu Andy
Rasse, Carina, Sandra Diehl & Ralf Terlutter
Rosiński, Maciej
Vilar-Lluch, Sara
2024. The linguistic construal of extreme behaviour. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 6:2 ► pp. 390 ff.
Nacey, Susan
Munday, Imogene, Ian Kneebone, Kris Rogers & Toby Newton-John
Schmieder, Christian
Silvestre-López, Antonio-José
Isaza, Carolina & Ringo Ossewaarde
Tay, Dennis & Robert A. Neimeyer
Munday, Imogene, Toby Newton‐John & Ian Kneebone
Deignan, Alice & Elena Semino
Deignan, Alice, Elena Semino & Shirley-Anne Paul
Kovář, Jan
2019. Variations of metaphors in party manifestos about EU finality. In Variation in political metaphor [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 85], ► pp. 151 ff.
Kovář, Jan
Kovář, Jan
Denroche, Charles
Scherer, Bee & Jeff Waistell
Silvestre-López, Antonio-José & Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando
2017. Metaphors in the conceptualisation of meditative practices. Metaphor and the Social World 7:1 ► pp. 26 ff.
Tay, Dennis
2015. Metaphor in case study articles on Chinese university counseling service websites. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 6:1 ► pp. 28 ff.
Tay, Dennis
Tay, Dennis
2020. Co-constructing ‘crisis’ with metaphor. In The Language of Crisis [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 87], ► pp. 231 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.
