Applying Metaphor Identification Procedure (Mipvu) to Biblical Texts

About the author:

Pyotr M. Shitikov, Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Cand. Div., Associate Professor, Department of Biblical Studies, Tobolsk Theological Seminary; petrkifa@mail.ru

Abstract:

The theme of this paper refers to applying metaphor identification procedure (MIP) by scientists group of VU of Amsterdam to original (Greek) texts of the Bible. The purpose of the paper is to show that modern methods of linguistic research can be employed profitably in ancient studies. At first, the author shows theoretical basis of the method of metaphor identification procedure. MIPVU consist of steps, which allow to find metaphor in long texts by comprising basic and textual meanings of lexical units. Then we represent the practical results of analysis of John Gospel in Greek. We analyze the text word-by-word with MIPVU method in order to find for finding metaphor related words (MRW). As a result, more than 10 % of nouns, used by John, were marked as MRW. These results can be applied to linguistic, conceptual and translations aspects of metaphor studying. We show that an MIP(VU) is important instrument for metaphor identification, which can be applied to ancient text.

References:

1. La Vie avec Dieu. 1989. Bibliya: Knigi Svyashchennogo Pisaniya Vetkhogo i Novogo Zaveta. Brussels: La Vie avec Dieu. 
2. Mishlanova S. L., Suvorova M. V. 2017. “Otsenka sootvetstviya protsedury identifikatsii metafory MIPVU kriteriyam podlinnoy nauchnosti metoda” [Evaluation of MIPVU Scientific Metods]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya, vol. 9, no 1, pp. 46-52.
3. Shitikov P. M. 2017. “Opyt kompleksnogo analiza kontseptual’noy metafory: ot originala k perevodu” [Toward to Complex Analysis of Conceptual Metaphor: From the Original to Translation]. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, no 3 (52), pp. 57-62.
4. Bauer W., Danker F. (eds.). 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press.
5. Beardsley M. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of criticism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
6. Black M. 1993. “More about Metaphor”, In: Ortony A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought, p. 34. Cambridge University Press.
7. Louw J. P., Nida E. A. (eds.). 1996. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. American Bible Society.
8. Hoey M. 1995. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London, Routledge.
9. Johnson M. 1981. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, p. 20. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
10. Kittay E. 1989. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, p. 93. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11. Light M, Greiff W. 2002. “Statistical Models for the Induction and Use of Selectional Preferences”. Cognitive Scienes, vol. 26 (3), pp. 269-281.
12. Loewenberg I. 1975. “Identifying Metaphors”. Foundations of Language, vol. 12, pp. 315-338.
13. Hendrickson Publishers Marketing. 2006. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC.
14. Neuman Y., Assaf D., Cohen Y., Last M., Argamon S., Howard N. et al. 2013. “Metaphor Identification in Large Texts Corpora”. PLoS one, vol. 8(4), pp. 269-281.
15. Pasma T. 2012. “Metaphor Identification in Dutch Discourse”. In: Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication, pp. 69-84. John Benjamins Publishing.
16. Steen G. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/celcr.14
17. Zaychenko N. 2011. Comparative Analysis of Metaphor in English-Russian Translation. Amsterdam.