Unformatted text preview: the concordance lines, therefore the method was abandoned. 204 Chapter V 4. The Pragglejaz Procedure
The presentation of this procedure is based on the Panel Discussion:
“Finding Metaphor in natural discourse: report on applying the Pragglejaz
procedure”, which took place at the 6th Researching and Applying Metaphor (RAAM) Conference in Leeds, April 10-12, 2006. The panellists
were: Gerard Steen, Ewa Biernacka, Lettie Dorst, Anna Kaal, Irene
López-Rodríguez, and Tryntje Pasma, who participate in two research
programmes conducted at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, i.e. “Metaphor
in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, cognitive representations” and “Conversationalisation of public discourse”.
Pragglejaz was developed through a cooperation of 10 metaphor
Z eter Crisps, Chinese University Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ay Gibbs, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, USA
lan Cienki, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
raham Low, University of York, York, UK
erard Steen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ynne Cameron, University of Leeds, UK
lena Semino, Lancaster University, UK
oe Grady, Cultural Logic LLC, Washington DC, USA
lice Deignan, University of Leeds, UK
oltán Kövecses, Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary.3 They set the goal of developing a reliable procedure for metaphor identification and proposed the following steps:
1) Decide about words. The word as the lexical unit examined for
2) Establish the contextual meaning of the examined word.
3) Determine the basic meaning of the word on the basis of the dictionary (Most concrete, human oriented as opposed to specific or vague).
4) Decide whether the basic meaning of the word is sufficiently distinct from the contextual meaning.
3 The presentation of the researchers and the formulation of the five steps of the procedure given below are a verbatim quote from the handout distributed during the panel. Words from the lexical field of war and their metaphoric potential 205 5) Decide whether the contextual meaning of the word can be related
to the more basic meaning by some form of similarity.
6) If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.
With regard to point 1, the pool of words has already been established in
Section 2. The way in which I employ the remaining instructions is shown
in an example below.
The first word on the most frequent list of the ‘war’ words in my
data was the noun forces, which, however, was considered a metaphorical
use of the word force, therefore it is not considered in my analysis as it
could blur the possible mappings by originating outside the investigated
domain. For the second word, the adjective military, 200 random hits
from the BNC were examined and considered by the present researcher as
non-metaphorical uses of the word. The third most frequent word, attack,4
turned out to present a panoply of uses and is therefore suitable as the test
example for the procedure...
View Full Document