Cover not available
Part of
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. 23–40

Chapter 2
MIPVU: A manual for identifying metaphor-related words

| , , The NetherlandsUniversity of Amsterdam , The Netherlands
| , , The NetherlandsLeiden University , The Netherlands
| , , SwitzerlandBasel University, Switzerland
| , , The NetherlandsVU University Amsterdam , The Netherlands
| , , The NetherlandsVU University Amsterdam , The Netherlands
| , , The Netherlandsformerly affiliated with VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Article outline
  • 2.1The basic procedure
  • 2.2Deciding about words: Lexical units
    • 2.2.1General guideline
    • 2.2.2Exceptions
      • Tests for deciding between phrasal/prepositional verbs
  • 2.3Indirect use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping
    • 2.3.1Identifying contextual meanings
    • 2.3.2Deciding about more basic meanings
    • 2.3.3Deciding about sufficient distinctness
    • 2.3.4Deciding about the role of similarity
  • 2.4Direct use potentially explained by cross-domain mapping
  • 2.5Implicit meaning potentially explained by cross-domain mapping
  • 2.6Signals of potential cross-domain mappings
  • 2.7New formations and parts that may be potentially explained by cross-domain mapping
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.02ste
References (6)
References
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Moskaluk, Kalina, Jordan Zlatev & Joost van de Weijer
2022. “Dizziness of Freedom”: Anxiety Disorders and Metaphorical Meaning-making. Metaphor and Symbol 37:4 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Schmitt, Rudolf, Larissa Pfaller, Julia Schröder & Anne-Kathrin Hoklas
2022. Die Praxis der systematischen Metaphernanalyse. Anwendungen und Anschlüsse. In Die Praxis der systematischen Metaphernanalyse, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Seepheephe, Ntšoeu
2022. Stigmatisation through metaphors borrowed from religious discourse in the early coverage of HIV and AIDS by the Sesotho press. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 40:3 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. 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.