The analysis and comparison of the lexical characteristics of metaphoric and non- metaphoric instances requires, in the first place, a methodological decision involving the classification of each item as metaphor. In order to be able to analyse the two groups statistically, they must be divided in such a way that they become, in effect, separate corpora. This entails the division of concordance lines into two clear groups of metaphoric and non-metaphoric instances. Attempting to make such a division, however, reveals a larger difficulty with identifying the distinction between word senses. Assigning a precise term to language dependent on contrasts in meaning and word senses, such as metaphor, conflicts with the pervasive nature of language: indistinct and vague boundaries between meaning senses are part of what allow meaning and indeed metaphor their inherent creative capabilities16.
The division cannot be undertaken objectively, and so it was decided to create a middle group to amass any unsure, ambiguous or weak or heavily conventionalized metaphors. This will help to keep the two datasets as clear and prototypical as possible. The creation of a middle group subsequently may serve also as a source of useful insights into the cases of less conventionalized or more problematic/complex metaphors.
Each list of concordance lines has been distributed to between three and six evaluators on separate occasions. Three participants have a background in linguistics but the others do not. They were asked to decide whether a given word was being used metaphorically within the context provided. Concordance lines were all set to 120 characters in length. If not enough context was provided to permit a decision, the participants could check more co-text by clicking on the concordance line to reveal more
16 Discussed at length in the Chapter 2.
63
text17. Participants were given three options for categorization. These were metaphoric, literal and unsure. Where there was discrepancy between any individual(s) and the remaining readers, the concordance was in any case placed in the unsure (henceforth middle) group. The intention was to create the assurance that all clearly identified metaphors have unanimously been agreed upon by no fewer than three individuals.
3.3 Investigations
From the keyword list, potential lexical items are explored in terms of their ability to be used metaphorically, their overall frequencies, and their frequency of use in both senses (metaphoric and non-metaphoric). Items are selected in accordance with these criteria. The analysis takes the form of three separate investigations of individual lexical items. More explicitly, the investigations consist of exploring in what senses (metaphoric/non- metaphoric) the items occur and what meanings they express. Each investigation focuses on applying the Lexical Priming theory (Hoey, 2005) to metaphoric language.
The lexical item approach is the same as the one taken by Lindquist and Levin (2008), and the opposite of the standard approach of many studies on metaphor, “which tend to start from a particular semantic field” (Lindquist and Levin, 2008: 145). This allows for an exploration of all possible uses of an item in a variety of behaviours and does not single out a particular type of metaphor, based on a single feature or characteristic. Moreover, it accounts for phraseological manifestations of meaning and possible idiomatic uses. Where a key item is singled out methodologically, the analysis will be exhaustive of all the item’s occurrences and more importantly, will concern co-textual as well as contextual and text-linguistic features. Each item will be studied primarily within the framework of its concordance line.
17 A function of Wordsmith5 (Scott, 2008).
Items have been chosen from three individual word classes (verb, adjective and noun). Research has been undertaken in cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor on certain noun is noun metaphors (to be discussed in 3.3.2.), and research in specific semantic areas has also been undertaken with regards to different word class metaphors. However, little work has been undertaken on word class differences in metaphoric language from a lexical based stance. Whilst the objective is to analyse metaphoric behaviour more generally in comparison to non-metaphoric behaviour, the decision to represent three of the major word classes in the analyses offers the opportunity to compare lexical differences potentially attributed to word class. The table below gives frequency and token figures for each item chosen for analysis:
Item Total Freq. % of 19thC corpus
(1/10,000) Token size as single corpus18
cultivated (adj.) 774 0.17 21,600
flame (n) 1265 0.27 51,962
grew (v) 3823 0.84 138,231
Table 3. 3. Frequency of item and token size as a single corpus
3.3.1 Study 1: Cultivated (adj.)
The first study is an investigation of the lexical item cultivated. As outlined above, it has been chosen for its relatively high frequency, and its presence on the keyword list, making it ‘key’, or specific to the nineteenth century data. Furthermore, its ability to be used figuratively as well as literally makes cultivated an ideal candidate to explore (roughly half of the first fifty lines read showed a degree of metaphoricity19).
As discussed in the literature review, the metaphoricity of words and phrases is dependent on the word class. Most metaphor theorists would agree that adjectival
18 Each concordance line has 120 characters of co-text. 19 Identifying metaphoricity is discussed in Section 3.4.
65
metaphors accommodate a variety of functions (cf. Steen 1999; Deignan, 2005). Adjectives can provide additional strength to an already existing noun metaphor, taking its implied comparison and extending it. Alternatively, adjectives can create metaphoricity exclusively, often leading to a more compact form. This can be seen in the following example where 'society which is cultivated’ is reduced to ‘cultivated society’: She was especially indignant at the talk she heard on all sides in cultivated society. More complex is a combination of the two, where an adjective modifies a noun metaphor and at the same time carries its own metaphoricity. In this case was can say the noun/verb and adjective metaphorise each other. At times both the adjective and the noun can have equal influence, creating an entirely metaphoric collocation, such as cultivated taste. These will all be discussed in more detail with examples from the data in the following chapter. In total there are 775 instances of cultivated acting as an adjective in the nineteenth century corpus.
3.3.2 Study 2: Flame (n)
The second study is an investigation of the noun uses of flame. Again, flame meets the criteria in terms of item frequency, keyness and high frequency of metaphoric and non- metaphoric uses. Following a comprehensive analysis of verb and adjective metaphors, it follows that noun metaphors should be analysed and compared. In terms of noun metaphors, research in cognitive linguistics has largely focused on predicate noun metaphors, or noun is noun examples. Deignan (2005) claims that these instances are more rare than is assumed in the literature, (Richard is a gorilla, Searle, 1993), and has provided evidence from corpus linguistics. Thus more research into naturally occurring, corpus derived, noun metaphors is needed. It is the intention of the concluding part of the
analysis to compare the types of metaphoric behaviour found in each word class study. All noun instances have been identified manually and the total number of concordances is 1200.
3.3.3 Study 3: Grew (v)
The final item chosen for study 3 is the verb grew. The main reason for choosing a second verb is because the data from the initial study of cultivated were relatively few and larger conclusions could not be drawn. Thus the intention with grew is to recreate the study to determine how far the results are comparable or if indeed each item behaves uniquely, regardless of word class. grew meets the criteria in terms of item frequency, keyness and high frequency of metaphoric and non-metaphoric uses.
From a lexical stance, Deignan (2005) has highlighted that verb metaphors are more common than noun metaphors within particular semantic domains (most notably, animal lexis). Other research into verb metaphors, again undertaken by Deignan (2005), claims that experiencing emotion is often depicted metaphorically as experiencing physical motion. Findings from the author’s MA thesis (Patterson, 2012) included that verb metaphors related to thought were most commonly depicted as MATERIAL processes rather than MENTAL. Thus, an analysis of the verb grew may reflect a difference in state (abstract/physical) between metaphoric and non-metaphoric uses, as well as a grammatical shift. All verb instances of grew in the nineteenth century corpus amount to 3812.