25.3614, Review: Discourse Analysis; Sociolinguistics: Herrmann (2013)

Mon Sep 15 20:24:50 UTC 2014

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3614. Mon Sep 15 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.3614, Review: Discourse Analysis; Sociolinguistics: Herrmann (2013)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
            Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Sara Couture, Indiana U <sara at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Malgorzata Cavar <gosia at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:24:19
From: Jill Hallett [chitownling at gmail.com]
Subject: Metaphor in Academic Discourse

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-3614.html&submissionid=30344821&topicid=9&msgnumber=1

Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=30344821

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-2694.html

AUTHOR: Julia Berenike  Herrmann
TITLE: Metaphor in academic discourse
SUBTITLE: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations
SERIES TITLE: LOT Dissertation Series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Jill M. Hallett, Northeastern Illinois University

Review's editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Metaphor in academic discourse incorporates analytic frameworks from Lakoff
and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory (1980), Biber (1988) and Biber et
al.’s (1999) corpus linguistic functional register analysis, and Halliday’s
meta-functions (Halliday and Hasan 1985/1989, and Halliday 2004) in analyzing
written language from English-language academic textbooks and journal
articles. Bowdle and Gentner’s (2005) “career of metaphor” theory has a
significant influence on the empirical studies of metaphor processing
presented later in the book. From the LOT Dissertation Series, “Metaphor in
Academic Discourse” is written for readers already well-versed in a variety of
theories of figurative language, as well as for those with some facility in
corpus linguistics and discourse analysis.

Chapter 1, “Metaphor in Academic Discourse” (15-50), opens with an
illustration of metaphor by means of a Woody Allen quote, followed by an
introduction to conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) as a jumping-off point.
Herrmann questions the role metaphor plays in academic discourse, which is
sometimes erroneously thought to be too rigid for figurative language. She
sets out to examine academic writing vis-à-vis fiction, news, and
conversation for metaphoric frequency across these genres as well as by word
class. Gaps in metaphor studies, such as the lack of large-scale metaphor
samples, inclusion of lexico-grammatical features, and variation across
academic prose, are briefly mentioned. In situating the background amid
controversies in metaphor theory, such as mapping and classification versus
comparison, Hermann presents the following research questions (37ff):

1. How is metaphor distributed among the four main registers of English?
2. How are particular linguistic features of metaphor such as word class and
metaphor type distributed in academic discourse as opposed to other main
registers of English?
3. What discourse functions can be inferred from the analysis of linguistic
forms of metaphor in academic discourse?
4. How is metaphor type (in terms of function) distributed across the four
academic subregisters of academic writing, fiction, news, and conversation?
5. Do contextual factors such as the domain of discourse and expert knowledge
play a role in the processing of academic metaphors?

In Chapter 2, “The Linguistic Analysis of Metaphor in Academic Discourse”
(51-89), Hermann provides background on the corpus linguistic research from
which her data are culled, in an attempt to “arrive at a global profile of
metaphor use in the academic register in contrast with other registers” (52).
Biber’s (1988) classification of registers through multidimensional analysis
complements the quantitative analyses of word count and class among the
registers. The author hypothesizes that academic discourse is less explicit
than other genres in its use of metaphor (69).

As explained in some detail in Chapter 3, “MIPVU: A Manual for Identifying
Metaphor-related words” (91-108), Herrmann’s data source is a subcorpus of
the British National Corpus (BNC) containing almost 200,000 words, annotated
according to the procedures outlined in the Pragglejaz Group’s (2007) metaphor
identification procedure of Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam.This procedure
involves cross-checking lexical units with their most basic use as determined
by their explication in the Macmillan Dictionary, and tagging word classes
according to the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Each
metaphor-related word (MRW) is further given a ‘direct metaphor’ tag if it
may be explained by cross-domain mapping [as in “the campsite was like a
holiday village” (105)], an ‘implicit’ tag if it is used for
lexico-grammatical substitution, as in the case of a pronoun [as in
“Naturally, to embark on such a step is not necessarily to succeed immediately
in realizing it” (105)] , or an ‘MFlag’ tag if it is a signal of an impending
MRW, [as in ‘conceive of and others (92ff)]. Herrmann elaborates the
appropriate procedures to follow when tags are in question, assuring the
reader that the resulting data are reliable. In Chapter 4, “Metaphor
Identification in Academic Discourse” (109-126), Herrmann offers a glimpse of
her results. There are not as many simile-like expressions used as she
expected, and “[d]irect use of lexical units related to metaphor may
frequently be related to a didactic function in academic discourse...(125).

The presentation of Herrmann’s results begins in earnest in Chapter 5, “A
Distributional Profile of Metaphor in Academic Discourse” (127-176). Here she
examines her corpus (BNC Baby) for metaphor distribution among word classes in
each register; the roles played by indirect, direct, and implicit metaphor in
academic prose versus in news, fiction, and conversation; and variation among
four subregisters of academic prose: humanities and arts, natural sciences,
social sciences, and politics, law, and education. She finds that the academic
register has the highest percentage of metaphor-related words at 18.5%,
followed closely by news at 16.4%. Furthermore, there is a “relatively stable
proportion of metaphor-related words across all word classes in [academic
prose] in direct cross-variety comparison” (144). Prepositions and verbs
account for the most MRWs,
although noun MRWs are most prevalent in academic prose. Herrmann also finds
that academic prose is situated toward the explicit reference end of Biber’s
Dimension 3 (as opposed to the situation-dependent end), and at the abstract
information end of Biber’s Dimension 5 (as opposed to the non-abstract end)
(157). The data also show that indirect metaphor is overwhelmingly more
prevalent than direct or implicit metaphor, especially in academic prose,
which the author attributes to indirect metaphor’s highly conventional nature,
suitable for academic texts (162-163). Finally, we learn that indirect
metaphors comprise 16.6-18.8 of the lexical units in the four subregisters
of academic prose, with the highest percentage in social science and the
lowest in natural science.

Where Chapter 5 presents a macroscopic approach to metaphor in academic
discourse, Chapter 6, “Metaphor and Word Class in Academic Prose: Detailed
Interpretation” (177-258) provides a microscopic analysis of the functions of
the linguistic elements at hand. Specifically, the author is interested in the
specific use of metaphor per word class, and the relationships among
metaphorical, lexical, and semiotic attributes and functions (177). For this
portion of her study, Herrmann, aided by the Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English (Biber et al. 1999), seeks to determine whether linguistic
features can be functionally categorized as ideational, textual, personal,
interpersonal, contextual, or aesthetic for the purpose of understanding how
MRWs in each word class behave in academic prose (181). She finds that
“lexical variation in MRWs reflects by and large the pattern of lexical and
functional word classes generally” (251), although, as evidenced in the
previous chapter, nouns seem to be more conducive to metaphorical
interpretations in academic prose. Additionally, Herrmann determines that
noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and preposition MRWs function ideationally,
whereas adverbs can also function interpersonally; all word classes may
exhibit textual functions as expected given the source of data. MRWs for
aesthetic functions, as for stylistic conventions such as variation of
vocabulary and avoidance of repetition through use of synonyms, are largely
abandoned in the academic register (251-253). An additional interesting
takeaway from the data in this chapter is that academic prose seems to make
metaphorical use of more word classes than do the other registers (255);
however, it is apparent that certain subclasses of words, namely prepositions,
verbs, and nouns, are more conducive to metaphor-related use (257).

Chapter 7, “Testing the Influence of Expertise on Metaphor Processing”
(259-298) is a departure from the corpus-based studies in previous chapters.
In this chapter, the author is interested in exploring alternatives to
metaphor theories of cross-domain mapping (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Kövecses
2002). To that end, Herrmann runs two experiments with human subjects based on
Bowdle and Gentner’s (2005) “career of metaphor” theory, which relates
expertise to grammatical processing as it differentiates categorization (in
the form of metaphor) from comparison (in the form of simile). Herrmann aims
to understand linguistic conventionality shown by metaphor use in academic
subdisciplines (here, psychology), and the role of expertise with respect to
such discourse. She hypothesizes that experts would process domainspecific
figurative language as conventional metaphor, where novices would resort to
strategies of comparison due to their lack of familiarity with the canonical
figurative language in their field (268-269). A scalar grammatical preference
task was constructed for categorization (A is B; for canonized figurative
language in psychology, the predicted choice for experts) versus comparison (A
is like B; for canonized figurative language in psychology, the predicted
choice for novices in the field). In Experiment 1, Herrmann selected two
groups of subjects with different levels of expertise in psychology, and found
no significant effect of expertise on technical figurative language: all
preferred categorization. Experiment 2 involved the training of novices;
Herrmann hypothesized that subjects would prefer the comparative form for
unstudied items and the categorative form for studied items, in effect
positing that repeated exposure canonizes technical figurative language.
Again, this hypothesis was not confirmed. The results were described as
“tentative and exploratory” (296) with respect to the effect of expertise on
grammatical form.

Wrapping up the research presented, Chapter 8, “Discussion and Conclusion”
begins with the reminder that “[m]etaphor use is not only specifically
frequent in academic prose in comparison with other registers of English, but
is pervasive in academic prose in that it is relatively evenly spread across
academic subregisters/ disciplines,” and furthermore that “concreteness and
conventionality of metaphorically used words are predictors of grammatical
form preference” (299). The chapter reiterates how the studies presented in
the book take into account conventionality, conceptualization, and discourse
functionality of metaphors; such integration of seemingly disparate approaches
inspired the author’s experiments on the relationship between grammatical form
preference and processing behavior, especially as such relationship
corresponds with expertise. Herrmann suggests that her corpus study supports
CMT theory (308), and while her data do not correlate with the results of
Bowdle and Gentner (2005), she posits that other factors, such as
lexicalization, may have affected her results with respect to grammatical
processing. Finally, Herrmann notes the significance of the annotated Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus (VUAMC) as a major contribution to
corpus linguistic research. She calls for further research on metaphor and
other linguistic patterns, especially as they relate to variation in discourse
and style, and also calls for more attention to metaphor and processing, as
well as investigation of spoken academic prose.

EVALUATION

Metaphor in Academic Discourse is quite successful in taking a
multimethodological approach to metaphor research. As the field of linguistics
is becoming more and more specialized, I find it appealing to read work that
integrates scholarship from several subfields, in this case corpus
linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics (particularly discourse
analysis). The author is explicit in laying out her aims, and she addresses
them satisfactorily. Where previous scholarship seeks polarity, Herrmann
situates her work in such a way that seemingly incompatible views inform her
research.

My problems with this book are fairly trifling, but worth a mention as a
reader unfamiliar with the particulars of the ongoing research at VU
Amsterdam. First, I lamented the dearth of examples in context; inclusion of
more examples and from where they were culled would have aided in illuminating
some of the coding strategies for those outside the VU sphere. I was, however,
pleased that the author included in the appendix examples of figurative
language used for the grammatical form preference tasks. Second, Herrmann’s
explanation of the results from the processing tasks struck me as somewhat
unconvincing; she did not get what she had expected, but made multiple
attempts to defend the theory quite staunchly anyway. Reading this publication
as a dissertation contextualizes adherence to the theory despite its lack of
support by these data.

Regardless of the minimal aforementioned issues, I found the book to be a
solid example of painstakingly detailed research into metaphor in academic
discourse on levels both micro- and macro-analytical. I was fascinated by the
human subjects experiments on expertise, and am quite curious to see similar
methods applied to different fields, with more levels of expertise. Further
research in this area would certainly elucidate the results found by Herrmann,
and give insight into how language is canonized institutionally. I would
recommend “Metaphor in Academic Discourse” to those working in the subfields
of corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics who would be
interested in seeing an example of work that not only successfully integrates
these three areas, but illustrates how such integration produces a holistic
body of data
that is greater than the sum of its parts.

REFERENCES

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward
Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson
Education.

Bowdle, Brian F. and Dedre Gentner. 2005. The career of metaphor.
Psychological Review 112(1), 193216.

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2004. An introduction to functional
grammar, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language,
context, and text. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Pragglejaz Group, the. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used
words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 139.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Jill Hallett is an instructor of English as a second language at Illinois
Institute of Technology, linguistics at Northeastern Illinois University, and
curriculum and instruction at University of Illinois at Chicago.  Her research
interests include sociolinguistics, specifically American and world Englishes,
urban pedagogical discourse, language in the media, linguistic identity in
literature, and second dialect acquisition.  Research from her dissertation,
“African American English in Urban Education: A Multimethodological Approach
to Understanding Classroom Discourse Strategies”, recently earned her the 2014
Founders’ Emergent Scholar Award from the International Society for Language
Studies and the Language Studies Foundation.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3614	
----------------------------------------------------------