Identifying Linguistic Metaphors through MIPVU

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Graduate Student in Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch
Abstract
Pragglejaz Group presented MIP as the first explicit and systematic procedure for linguistic metaphor identification in 2007, and now MIPVU is the refined and extended version. This paper tries to introduce and examine this method according to data gathered from Persian language.

Keywords


-انوری،ح .(1382) فرهنگ فشرده سخن فارسی، تهران: انتشارات سخن
-Cameron, L. and G. Low (1999)."Metaphor”.Language Teaching, 32, 77-96.
-Gibbs, R.W.Jr. (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought.New York: Cambridge University Press.
-HaserV. (2005)Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-Kövecses,Z.(2010)Metaphor: A practical introduction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Lakoff, G. and Mark J. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
-Ortony,A. (1979/1993). Metaphor and thought.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP:”A Method for Identifying Metaphorically used Words Indiscourse”. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
-Ritchie, D. (2003). “ArgumentIs War–or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in theanalysis of implicit metaphors”.Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 125–146.
----------------(2004). Common Ground in Metaphor Theory: Continuing the Conversation. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 233–244.
-Steen, G.J., A.G. Dorst, J.B. Herrmann, A.A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr and T. Pasma (2010).Linguistic Metaphor Identification in Natural Discourse: A Casebook. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
-Vervaeke, J. and Kennedy, J.M. (1996). Metaphors in language and thought: Disproof and multiple meanings. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 , 273-284.
-Wipf, B. (2010), WineWriting Meets MIPVU: Linguistic Metaphor Identification of Tasting Notes.M.Adissertation in Metaphor Studies, VU University Amsterdam (unpublished).