Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual metaphor theory meets the data: a corpus-based human annotation study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Resources and Evaluation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metaphor makes our thoughts more vivid and fills our communication with richer imagery. Furthermore, according to the conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) of Lakoff and Johnson (Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980), metaphor also plays an important structural role in the organization and processing of conceptual knowledge. According to this account, the phenomenon of metaphor is not restricted to similarity-based extensions of meanings of individual words, but instead involves activating fixed mappings that reconceptualize one whole area of experience in terms of another. CMT produced a significant resonance in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence and still underlies a large proportion of modern research on metaphor. However, there has to date been no comprehensive corpus-based study of conceptual metaphor, which would provide an empirical basis for evaluating the CMT using real-world linguistic data. The annotation scheme and the empirical study we present in this paper is a step towards filling this gap. We test our annotation procedure in an experimental setting involving multiple annotators and estimate their agreement on the task. The goal of the study is to investigate (1) how intuitive the conceptual metaphor explanation of linguistic metaphors is for human annotators and whether it is possible to consistently annotate interconceptual mappings; (2) what are the main difficulties that the annotators experience during the annotation process; (3) whether one conceptual metaphor is sufficient to explain a linguistic metaphor or whether a chain of conceptual metaphors is needed. The resulting corpus annotated for conceptual mappings provides a new, valuable dataset for linguistic, computational and cognitive experiments on metaphor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.ota.ox.ac.uk/headers/2541.xml.

  2. BNC Baby is a four-million-word subset of the British National Corpus (BNC) (Burnard 2007), comprising four different genres: academic, fiction, newspaper and conversation. For more information see http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/corpus/babyinfo.html.

  3. For more details on how chance agreement is calculated see Siegel and Castellan (1988).

References

  • Agerri, R., Barnden, J. A., Lee, M. G., & Wallington, A. M. (2007). Metaphor, inference and domain-independent mappings. In Proceedings of RANLP-2007 (pp. 17–23). Borovets, Bulgaria.

  • Barnden, J. A., & Lee, M. G. (2002). An artificial intelligence approach to metaphor understanding. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6(1), 399–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnard, L. (2007). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML ed.). http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/XMLedition/URG/

  • Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E., Blaheta, D., Ge, N., Hall, K., Hale, J., & Johnson, M. (2000). BLLIP 1987-89 WSJ corpus release 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., Huang, C. R. (2005). Source domains as concept domains in metaphorical expressions. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10(4), 553–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deignan, A. (2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In Stefanowitsch, A., Gries, S. T. (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89(2), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 47, 537–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R., & Tendahl, M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 92–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, S. P., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2008). Chinese word sketch and mapping principles: A corpus-based study of conceptual metaphors using the BUILDING source domain. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 21(2), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Technical report, PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

  • Hardie, A., Koller, V., Rayson, P., & Semino, E. (2007). Exploiting a semantic annotation tool for metaphor analysis. In Proceedings of the corpus linguistics conference, Birmingham, UK.

  • Haskell, R. E. (2002). Cognitive science and the origin of lexical metaphor. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6(1), 291–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izwaini, S. (2003). Corpus-based study of metaphor in information technology. In Proceedings of the workshop on corpus-based approaches to figurative language, corpus linguistics 2003, Lancaster, 27 March 2003.

  • Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivisto-Alanko, P., & Tissari, H. (2006). Sense and sensibility: Rational thought versus emotion in metaphorical language. In Stefanowitsch, A., Gries, S. T. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnakumaran, S., & Zhu, X. (2007). Hunting elusive metaphors using lexical resources. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational approaches to figurative language (pp. 13–20). Rochester, NY.

  • Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). The master metaphor list. Technical report, University of California at Berkeley.

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönneker, B. (2004). Lexical databases as resources for linguistic creativity: Focus on metaphor. In Proceedings of the LREC 2004 workshop on language resources for linguistic creativity (pp. 9–16). Lisbon, Portugal.

  • Lönneker-Rodman, B. (2008). The hamburg metaphor database project. Issues in Resource Creation Language Resources and Evaluation, 42, 293–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönneker, B., & Eilts, C. (2004). A current resource and future perspectives for enriching wordnets with metaphor information. In Proceedings of the second international wordnet conference (GWC 2004) (pp. 157–162). Brno, Czech Republic, 2004.

  • Low, G., Todd, Z., Deignan, A., & Cameron, L. (2010). Researching and applying metaphor in the real world. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L., & Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological influences on BUILDING metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse and Society, 19(3), 383–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. H. (1988). Representing regularities in the metaphoric lexicon. In Proceedings of the 12th conference on computational linguistics (pp. 396–401).

  • Martin, J. H. (1990). a computational model of metaphor interpretation. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. H. (1994). Metabank: A knowledge-base of metaphoric language conventions. Computational Intelligence, 10, 134–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. H. (2006). A corpus-based analysis of context effects on metaphor comprehension. In Stefanowitsch, A., Gries, S. T. (Eds.), Corpus-Based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Z. J. (2004). Cormet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, S. (1997). Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect (KARMA). Technical report, PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

  • Narayanan, S. (1999). Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In Proceedings of AAAI 99) (pp. 121–128). Orlando, Florida.

  • Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. USA: Viking Adult.

  • Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M. (1978). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 164–201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalizi, C. R. (2003). Analogy and metaphor. http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/analogy.html

  • Shutova, E. (2010). Models of metaphor in NLP. In Proceedings of ACL 2010, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Shutova, E., & Teufel, S. (2010). Metaphor corpus annotated for source-target domain mappings. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Valletta, Malta.

  • Shutova, E., Sun, L., & Korhonen, A. (2010). Metaphor identification using verb and noun clustering. In Proceedings of Coling 2010, Beijing, China.

  • Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorczynska Sznajder, H., & Pique-Angordans, J. (2004). A corpus-based description of metaphorical marking patterns inscientific and popular business discourse. In Proceedings of European research conference on mind, language and metaphor (Euresco conference), Granada, Spain.

  • 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., Buchlovsky, P., Fellows, L., & Glasbey, S. R. (2003). Metaphor annotation: A systematic study. Technical report, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham.

  • Wikberg, K. (2008). The role of corpus studies in metaphor research. In N. L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm Metaphor Festivals (pp. 33–48). Stockholm: Department of English, Stockholm University.

  • Wilks, Y. (1975). A preferential pattern-seeking semantics for natural language inference. Artificial Intelligence, 6, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, William Gates Building, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0FD, UK

    Ekaterina Shutova & Anna Korhonen

  2. Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK

    Barry J. Devereux

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Shutova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barry J. Devereux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Korhonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Shutova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shutova, E., Devereux, B.J. & Korhonen, A. Conceptual metaphor theory meets the data: a corpus-based human annotation study. Lang Resources & Evaluation 47, 1261–1284 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9238-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9238-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation