In the present case the word to consult has been

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: erally used domain are not. I want to investigate (1) (2) (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. 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

This essay was uploaded on 02/24/2014 for the course LING 1100 taught by Professor Friedman during the Fall '09 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Ask a homework question - tutors are online