Replication Data for: What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you (even though it really does)

The two datasets provided here were used to provide inter-rater reliability statistics for the application of a metaphor identification procedure to texts written in English. Three experienced metaphor researchers applied the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU) to approximately 1500 words of text from two English-language newspaper articles. The dataset Eng1 contains each researcher’s independent analysis of the lexical demarcation and metaphorical status of each word in the sample. The dataset Eng2 contains a second analysis of the same texts by the same three researchers, carried out after a comparison of our responses in Eng 1 and a troubleshooting session where we discussed our differences. The accompanying R-code was used to produce the three-way and pairwise inter-rater reliability data reported in Section 3.2 of the chapter: How do I determine what comprises a lexical unit? The headings in both datasets are identical, although the order of the columns differs in the two files. In both datasets, each line corresponds to one orthographic word from the newspaper texts.
Chapter Abstract: The first part of this chapter discusses various ‘nitty-gritty’ practical aspects about the original MIPVU intended for the English language. Our focus in these first three sections is on common pitfalls for novice MIPVU users that we have encountered when teaching the procedure. First, we discuss how to determine what comprises a lexical unit (section 3.2). We then move on to how to determine a more basic meaning of a lexical unit (section 3.3), and subsequently discuss how to compare and contrast contextual and basic senses (section 3.4). We illustrate our points with actual examples taken from some of our teaching sessions, as well as with our own study into inter-rater reliability, conducted for the purposes of this new volume about MIPVU in multiple languages. Section 3.5 shifts to another topic that new MIPVU users ask about – namely, which practical tools they can use to annotate their data in an efficient way. Here we discuss some tools that we find useful, illustrating how we utilized them in our inter-rater reliability study. We close this part with section 3.6, a brief discussion about reliability testing. The second part of this chapter adopts more of a bird’s-eye view. Here we leave behind the more technical questions of how to operationalize MIPVU and its steps, and instead respond more directly to the question posed above: Do we really have to identify every metaphor in every bit of our data? We discuss possible approaches for research projects involving metaphor identification, by exploring a number of important questions that all researchers need to ask themselves (preferably before they embark on a major piece of research). Section 3.7 weighs some of the differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches in metaphor research projects, while section 3.8 talks about considerations when it comes to choosing which texts to investigate, as well as possible research areas where metaphor identification can play a useful role. We close this chapter in section 3.9 with a recap of our ‘take-away’ points – that is, a summary of the highlights from our entire discussion.

本节所提供之两份数据集，旨在为将隐喻识别程序应用于英语文本的评估提供评阅者间可靠性统计数据。三位经验丰富的隐喻研究专家对两篇英语报纸文章中约1500词的文本应用了自由大学隐喻识别程序（MIPVU）。数据集Eng1包含了每位研究者对样本中每个单词的词汇界定和隐喻状态的独立分析。数据集Eng2则包含了同一三位研究者对相同文本的第二次分析，该分析在比较Eng1中的响应后进行，并在一次故障排除会议中讨论了我们的差异。伴随的R代码被用于生成章节3.2中报告的三向和成对评阅者间可靠性数据。两个数据集的标题相同，尽管两个文件中列的顺序不同。在这两个数据集中，每一行对应报纸文本中的一个正字法单词。章节摘要：本章的第一部分讨论了原版MIPVU在英语语言中的应用中的各种‘细节’实际问题。在前三个部分中，我们的重点在于我们曾在教授该程序时遇到的初学者常见的陷阱。首先，我们讨论了如何确定词汇单元的构成（第3.2节）。随后，我们转向如何确定词汇单元的更基本意义（第3.3节），并随后讨论如何比较和对比语境意义和基本意义（第3.4节）。我们通过实际示例来说明我们的观点，这些示例取自我们的教学课程，以及我们为这本关于MIPVU的多语言新著进行的评阅者间可靠性研究。第3.5节转向了新MIPVU用户询问的另一个主题——即，他们可以使用哪些实用工具来高效地标注他们的数据。在这里，我们讨论了一些我们认为有用的工具，并说明了我们如何在我们的评阅者间可靠性研究中利用它们。我们以第3.6节结束本部分，该节简要讨论了可靠性测试。本章的第二部分采用了一种更为宏观的视角。在这里，我们放下了如何操作MIPVU及其步骤的更技术性问题，而是更直接地回答了上述提出的问题：我们是否真的需要在我们的数据中识别每一个隐喻？我们通过探讨所有研究人员都需要问自己的一些重要问题（最好在开始一项重大研究之前）来讨论涉及隐喻识别的研究项目可能采取的方法。第3.7节权衡了定量和定性方法在隐喻研究项目中的某些差异，而第3.8节则讨论了在选择要研究的文本以及隐喻识别可能发挥有用作用的可能研究领域时的考虑因素。我们以第3.9节的总结结束本章，即我们讨论的要点概要——即，我们从整个讨论中提炼出的亮点。