Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Methodological problems in the analysis of a co...
View graph of relations

Methodological problems in the analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Methodological problems in the analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer. / Semino, Elena; Heywood, J.; Short, M. H.
In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2004, p. 1271-1294.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Semino E, Heywood J, Short MH. Methodological problems in the analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics. 2004;36(7):1271-1294. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.013

Author

Bibtex

@article{d2a3c67e27274dabb71435c1a91c2a93,
title = "Methodological problems in the analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer.",
abstract = "In this paper, we discuss a number of methodological problems we have encountered in identifying and analysing metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. These problems relate particularly to: (i) the boundary between the literal and the metaphorical in the identification of linguistic metaphors; (ii) the precise identification of tenor and vehicle in relation to each linguistic metaphor; (iii) the extrapolation of conceptual metaphors from linguistic metaphors; and (iv) the extrapolation of conventional metaphors from patterns in the data. We begin with a discussion of the way in which metaphors are commonly analysed within the cognitive paradigm, and introduce in detail Steen{\textquoteright}s [From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p. 57, 1999] proposal for an explicit and rigorous procedure for metaphor analysis. We then present a range of examples from our corpus that pose problems at different points in Steen{\textquoteright}s procedure, and demonstrate how different decisions in the process of analysis lead to dramatically different conclusions as to the way in which cancer appears to be metaphorically constructed in our data. In light of our discussion, we propose some adjustments to Steen{\textquoteright}s procedure and highlight areas in which further research is needed.",
keywords = "Cancer metaphors, Metaphor identification, Metaphor analysis, Cognitive metaphor theory, Steen{\textquoteright}s five-step metaphor identification procedure",
author = "Elena Semino and J. Heywood and Short, {M. H.}",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.013",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "1271--1294",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological problems in the analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer.

AU - Semino, Elena

AU - Heywood, J.

AU - Short, M. H.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - In this paper, we discuss a number of methodological problems we have encountered in identifying and analysing metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. These problems relate particularly to: (i) the boundary between the literal and the metaphorical in the identification of linguistic metaphors; (ii) the precise identification of tenor and vehicle in relation to each linguistic metaphor; (iii) the extrapolation of conceptual metaphors from linguistic metaphors; and (iv) the extrapolation of conventional metaphors from patterns in the data. We begin with a discussion of the way in which metaphors are commonly analysed within the cognitive paradigm, and introduce in detail Steen’s [From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p. 57, 1999] proposal for an explicit and rigorous procedure for metaphor analysis. We then present a range of examples from our corpus that pose problems at different points in Steen’s procedure, and demonstrate how different decisions in the process of analysis lead to dramatically different conclusions as to the way in which cancer appears to be metaphorically constructed in our data. In light of our discussion, we propose some adjustments to Steen’s procedure and highlight areas in which further research is needed.

AB - In this paper, we discuss a number of methodological problems we have encountered in identifying and analysing metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. These problems relate particularly to: (i) the boundary between the literal and the metaphorical in the identification of linguistic metaphors; (ii) the precise identification of tenor and vehicle in relation to each linguistic metaphor; (iii) the extrapolation of conceptual metaphors from linguistic metaphors; and (iv) the extrapolation of conventional metaphors from patterns in the data. We begin with a discussion of the way in which metaphors are commonly analysed within the cognitive paradigm, and introduce in detail Steen’s [From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p. 57, 1999] proposal for an explicit and rigorous procedure for metaphor analysis. We then present a range of examples from our corpus that pose problems at different points in Steen’s procedure, and demonstrate how different decisions in the process of analysis lead to dramatically different conclusions as to the way in which cancer appears to be metaphorically constructed in our data. In light of our discussion, we propose some adjustments to Steen’s procedure and highlight areas in which further research is needed.

KW - Cancer metaphors

KW - Metaphor identification

KW - Metaphor analysis

KW - Cognitive metaphor theory

KW - Steen’s five-step metaphor identification procedure

U2 - 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.013

DO - 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.013

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 1271

EP - 1294

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

SN - 0378-2166

IS - 7

ER -