This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: erally used domain are not. I want to investigate
(3) how frequently these words are used in the military context, as
opposed to other possible contexts
is the military context the most frequent
if not, which context is the most frequent. The answers to these questions can be found in a corpus. They constitute
linguistic facts. 198 Chapter V 2. The data
This study is intended as an attempt to devise a corpus based aid in the
identification and naming of metaphor Source Domains. It is not meant as
a criticism of previous analyses, rather as a modest proposal for the advancement of intersubjectivity in metaphor research. The selection of
words for the analysis is completely data-driven, to avoid any personal
bias. The method is developed in relation to the WAR domain, because the
background knowledge necessary for the interpretation of corpus data has
already been gathered in Chapters Three and Four.
The Times War Reports Corpus (TWRC), used in Chapter Four
and described in Appendix 1, has been used as a starting point for the selection of key words. In step one, a concordancer antconc freely available
via the Internet from Laurence Anthony’s web page (http://www.antlab.
sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html) has been used to compile a frequency list
for TWRC. The words considered as typical for the lexical field of war
have been selected from the list. Different word forms have been collapsed under one entry, so that the results for attack (noun and verb), attacked, attacking, attacks have been added together. That means that the
results for words which do not differ in form in their verbal and nominal
uses have been relatively higher, than for those where spelling differences
occur between the word classes, as in the case of invasion, invade. In
some cases the concordance lines have been checked to eliminate the
homonyms which do not belong to the field in question, but could increase the score. For example the occurrences of the possessive pronoun
mine have been subtracted from the results for the noun mine/s. The final
frequency list consists of 167 items and is presented in Appendix 1.
In step 2 the decision to consider only those words which have a
frequency above 100 occurrences in TWRC has been made. This decision
has limited the list to the top 51 words.
In step 3 of the data selection, three independent linguistically
trained judges have read the list and performed two tasks. First, they have
ascertained that the words in the list represent the lexical field of war.
Second, they have marked out those words which they have considered
metaphorical in this lexical field. If at least two judges have agreed on a
word’s metaphorical status, the word has been crossed out from further
investigations to circumvent the problem of the Source Domain. That is
there seems to be no independent way of deciding whether a metaphoric Words from the lexical field of war and their metaphoric potential 199 use of such a word is a mapping from the war domain or from the domain
which was a source for the mapping into the WAR domain in the first
place. They have ruled out...
View Full Document