Method and Technique of Analyzing Data
found in COCA. Moreover, the Content Analysis covers the efforts of: classifying symbols used in the communication, using criteria in classifying, and employing
particular analysis technique in analyzing. Considering the characteristics of the data analyzed as the non-numerical
data or qualitative data, therefore, the analysis of the data would be done by using descriptive qualitative analysis.
Chronologically, the technique of analyzing the data used in the study can be presented and done as bellow:
1. Firstly, the symbols used in the communication, in this case the
metaphorical expressions related to God found in COCA would be identified. The identification of the symbols would be illuminated by using
reading skill and applying the theory and method used. 2.
After the identification of the symbols, then, the data would be categorized and described based on the conceptual metaphor types by applying the
theory proposed by Lakoff and Johnson 1980 and Kövecses 2002. 3.
The next step would be done by revealing the meaning of the metaphorical expressions found.
4. Finally, the result would be achieved and presented through Informal
Method meaning that it is presented through words and sentences instead of using symbols Sudaryanto, 1993: 145.
Moreover, in this present study, the method and technique of analyzing data would be led by firstly the Pragglejaz’s MIP Metaphor Identification
Procedure 2007 and completed by the Steen’s five steeps 1999, 2009 in order to map the expression mentioned metaphorically by using the Steen’s formulas.
The methods following the process, in this section, would be divided into two main parts as an example of analyzing, since implicitly the first steep of the
Steen’s five steeps consists of the Pragglejaz’s MIP. The aim is in order to make the analyzing process clear step by step. Otherwise, in the coming section of the
analysis in this study, the process would be made shorter by applying the Steen’s five steeps only in order to keep the path of the analysis as transparent as possible
and focusing on the mapping of the conceptual metaphor. In order to result an analysis which is accurate and different from previous
works in metaphorical expression, this present study as well considers top – down and bottom – up approach in the process of the data analysis. Working with top –
down approach spent some times in order to look for some metaphorical concepts, as it is the first step of this approach. In addition, top – down approach would start
the analysis from existing metaphorical concepts, analyzing them, and proving their existence in the use in the expressions. On the other hand, bottom – up
approach goes through its analysis in an opposite way. Moreover, bottom – up approach considers metaphorical concepts, analyses them in order to find
metaphorical concepts which perhaps are new from existing expressions or metaphorical expressions. Furthermore, these two approaches are used in this
present study, depending on the result of the analysis, by mentioning them in the explanation following the analysis of the expressions picked from the COCA.
The Pragglejaz’s MIP 2007 proposes a procedure in order to identify and decide concerning to metaphorically used words in a context. The steps of the
MIP can be applied by following these four steps.
1. Read the entire text – discourse to establish a general understanding of
the meaning. 2.
Determine the lexical units in the text – discourse. 3.
a. For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute, in the situation
evoked by the text contextual meaning. Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit.
b. For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our
purpose, basic meanings tend to be; - More concrete what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear,
feel, smell, and taste - Related to bodily action
- More precise as opposed to vague - Historically older
Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.
c. If the lexical unit has a more basic current – contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the
contextual meaning contrast with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it.
4. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.
Now, a demonstration of a sentence using the MIP would be done. The sentence related to God was found in COCA from a magazine in 2000 under the
title “Christian Century” that was written by Mark G. Toulouse.
“Faith can find God even while war rages”
In step 2, the sentence was identified using slashes in order to indicate the boundaries among the lexical units.
Faith can find God even while war rages The discussion concerning the sentence was arrived in step 3 of the
procedure. It was started from the beginning of the sentence and turned word by word in sequence. For each lexical unit, the outline of the decision was presented
following each lexical unit and used a dictionary discussed later in order to reveal the meaning, and the final decision would be mentioned directly whether
the unit is used metaphorically in the context of the sentence.
Faith
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “faith” indicates a noun which is a real noun. Otherwise, the word “faith” is an abstract noun that cannot
do human activities actions, such as; find. However, in this context, using of the verb phrase “can find” is showing that the word “faith” is acting likely a human.
b Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the noun phrase “faith” does mean strong belief in or trust of someone or something. On the other
hand, as picked from Longman Dictionary, the meaning is supported as well as a strong feeling of trust or confidence in someone or something.
c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning and can be understood by comparison with it.
Comparing the two meanings, contextual and basic meaning, gives an understanding that in the context, the noun phrase “faith” is described as creature
or human having such a belief or trusting someone or something. Metaphorically used? Yes.
can
a Contextual meaning: an auxiliary verb “can” in this context, is indicating an ability of doing something. In this case, the subject is able to find
something. Additionally, it is showing that the subject knows how to do something.
b Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the auxiliary verb “can” means to have the ability or means to do something. On the other hand, it is
mentioned as well that this “can” means to have the necessary ability, knowledge, money, or equipment to do something. According to Longman Dictionary, it is
meant as to be able to do something or to know how to do something, in terms of ability.
c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning.
Metaphorically used? No.
find
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “find” indicates a verb coming together with the meaning of to discover, to gain as the object of desire or
effort, or to point out. In this case, to discover, to gain, or to point out the “God” itself.
b Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the verb phrase “find” is meant as to discover something, or to see where it is by searching for it.
Supported by Longman Dictionary, it is meant as to discover, see, or get something that you have been searching for.
c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning. There is no comparison.
Metaphorically used? No.
God
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “God” indicates something thinkable physically to be discovered or found by the subject. Most of
the cultures in the earth are describing the God as a light. In addition, Hinduism describes the God their main God as a light without picture and understanding of
His appearance. At all cases, what should be found from the God prominently is His way, path, or understanding.
b Basic meaning: Macmillan Dictionary mentions that the word “God” basically means one of the male spirits or beings with special powers that people
in some religions believe in and worship. In addition, it is also captured as something that someone thinks is very important and allows to control their life.
Similar as Macmillan, Longman Dictionary is as well stating the basic meaning of the word “God” as the spirit or being who Christians, Jews, Muslims etc pray to,
and who they believe created the universe. Moreover, it is mentioning as well that a male spirit or being who is believed by some religions to control the world or
part of it, or who represents a particular quality. c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: implicitly, those meanings
seem tend to have one perception. However, contextually, the word “God” is captured more than merely male or female spirit with special powers that someone
in some religions believe in and worship. It is more than that. A good imaginative thinking will disclose it. It might be imaginary. In fact, that is the power of
metaphor in this present study, related to God. It depends on how the stress is put and developed.
Metaphorically used? Yes.
even
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the adverb “even” indicates an implication of an extreme example in the case mentioned, as compared to the
implied reality. In this case, there is a comparison of time between the subject faith finding something and another subject war does something.
b Basic meaning: Macmillan Dictionary has some statements according to the adverb “even”, they are used for showing that you are saying something
that is surprising, used for adding a more extreme word or phrase to emphasize
what you have just said, and used for emphasizing that although something is big, good, bad etc, something else is bigger, better, worse etc. Supported by Longman
Dictionary, the adverb “even” is meant as to be used to emphasize something that is unexpected or surprising in what you are saying.
c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: there is no any comparison found between the meanings. The contextual meaning is the same as the basic
meaning. Metaphorically used? No.
while
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the conjunction “while” shows two things finding God and war rages are happening in the same time. This
“while” indicates more than one thing happening during the same time. b Basic meaning: found in Macmillan Dictionary, the conjunction
“while” is meant as at a moment during the time that something is happening, or at the same time that something is happening. Borrowed by Longman Dictionary,
this conjunction means as during the time that something is happening, or all the time that something is happening.
c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning.
Metaphorically used? No.
war
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the noun phrase “war” indicates people who are in a great fight. On the other way, this “war” indicates a large –
scale conflict between ethnic, or other groups. More deeply, this “war” is not showing literal meaning as mentioned in dictionaries. It acts as a figurative
language as something thoughtful and has anger as a human being. b Basic meaning: based on Macmillan Dictionary, this noun phrase
“war” is stated as fighting between two or more countries that involves the use of armed forces and usually continues for a long time. On the other hand, Longman
Dictionary mentions the meaning of this noun phrase as when there is a fighting between two or more countries or between opposing groups within a country,
involving large numbers of soldiers and weapons. c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: followed by the verb phrase
“rages”, the meaning of this “war” does not merely stop in the basic meaning. There is another context that leads us to an understanding as “war” is not merely a
condition, is a human, or group of humans, gather together, and do such a violent activities, in this respect is raging. Finally, the contextual meaning is not the same
as the basic meaning, and can be understood by comparison with it. Metaphorically used? Yes.
rages
a Contextual meaning: in this context, the verb phrase “rages” indicates a condition of being very violent, uncontrolled, and full of anger. The word “rage”
in this sentence shows a movement with great violence as well, as a storm.
b Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the verb phrase “rage” does mean as a very strong feeling of anger, or violent behaviour in a
public situation. For example, road rage is violent behaviour by drivers. Supported by Longman Dictionary, this “rage” does mean as a strong feeling of
uncontrollable anger. c Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is
the same as the basic meaning. There is no any comparison found in the discourse. Metaphorically used? No.
In summary of the process, 3 out of 8 lexical units are judged as being used metaphorically. In the previous process, the procedure using the Pragglejaz’s
MIP was done step by step in order to show and describe how the procedure works and the decision made. Decisions must be made even though some words
are used metaphorically in the expression, according to the contextual aspect. Leaving the MIP a moment while keeping the procedures and the result in
our mind, now as the second process of the present analysis, the Steen’s Five Steps would be introduced and demonstrated using the same sentence as the MIP
demonstration did. The second process would be enlightened by the Steen’s Five Steps. In
these five steps, Steen 1999, 2009 proposes that “The procedure is meant to constrain the relation between linguistic and conceptual metaphor”. Additionally,
the Steen’s Five Steps can be applied in analysing conceptual metaphor in the expressions and in order to find linguistics evidences. Surprisingly, these five
steps can be an analyst’s weapon in the analysis whether using bottom – up
approach or top – down approach. Moreover, the top – down approach would presume the existing conceptual metaphor, in this respect, related to God, and
searching for linguistic expressions as its evidences. On the other hand, the bottom – up approach has no specific conceptual metaphor to be followed and
herein, the metaphor is identified before the conceptual mapping see Krennmayr 2013: 7, 8. Finally, the Steen’s Five Steps 1999, 2009 are proposed as follow:
1. Metaphor focus identification
2. Metaphorical idea identification
3. Nonliteral comparison identification
4. Nonliteral analogy identification
5. Nonliteral mapping identification
As Steen 1999: 59 states that “Ultimately, the cognitive linguist has to begin with stretches of discourse and determine which linguistic expressions are
metaphorical and related to which conceptual metaphors, and this is no trivial matter”. It indicates that in this procedure Steen considers the metaphorical
analysis, as well from a cognitive linguistics perspective. In addition, the first point of the Steen’s Five Steps was revealed by concerning what Steen stated. It
was named as “Metaphor focus identification”, since a line of discourse should be focused or prepared by knowing which linguistic expression in the discourse is
metaphorically used. Moreover, another procedure, which is called as the MIP, re- enlightens the path of the thinking of this study. Considering that the aim between
the MIP and the first step of the Steen’s Five Steps are similar which is to identify and make a decision in order to disclose and classify whether a lexical unit in a
discourse or linguistics expression is being used metaphorically giving another
more complex and well-arranged procedure in order to properly work through this analysis.
Moving to the second step of the Steen’s Five Steps which is named as “Metaphorical idea identification”, it is the moment to pour more deeply idea of
the result of the first identification in step 1. Steen 1999: 62 proposed that “What makes a focus into a focus is the fact that it expresses a concept which is to be
related to another concept to which it cannot be applied in a literal fashion: riding on cannot be literally applied to mermaids doing something to waves, and the
royal court cannot be literally applied to lions”. Moreover, Steen 1999: 62 proposed that “As these are general aspects of discourse analysis which are not
limited to metaphor, and propositional analysis was specially designed to cater for them, it is now time to turn to propositional analysis”. Finally, the second step
appears together with propositional analysis and classifies the result from step 1 into some propositions. The propositions are symbolized using the letter “P” with
a number following after it. For instance, some propositions would be shown in the following see Steen, 1999: 62.
“I have seen the mermaids riding seawards on the waves”. P1 SEE P2
P2 RIDE-ON MERMAIDS WAVES P3 DIRECTION P2 SEAWARDS
In step 3 Nonliteral comparison identification, the analysis comes into a comparative structure see Miller, 1993. Additionally, this third step is “highly
mechanical” Steen, 1999: 67. There are three re-write rules in this step 3, it is depending on the metaphor itself, whether it is nominal, verbal, or sentential see
Semino et al, 2004. The framework of step 3 is mentioned in the following section. There are two versions of the framework. Both of them are introduced
here. 1.
The Steen’s Five Steps 1999 version
As an example, the sentence I have seen the mermaids riding seawards on the waves was taken from T.S. Eliot, The love song of J. Alfred
Prufrock as the result from the second step see Steen, 1999: 60, 67; Semino et al, 2004: 1276.
Ride-on Mermaids Waves ̶ ӠF Ӡy,y
{SIM [FMermaids, Waves, Ride-on y,y]} Steen paraphrases this framework as follow: “There is an activity or
relation F and two entities y and y such that there is a similarity between mermaids and waves doing F on the one hand and y riding
on y on the other 1999: 67. 2.
The Steen’s Five Steps 2009 version
The 1999 version and the 2009 version are similar in concept and practice. The one that makes them different is the second comparison
happening. It depends on how many entities are being analysed. If in the 1999 version, there will be two entities waiting for the analysis.
Otherwise, in another version, there is merely one entity being analysed. In the present study, the analysis would surely apply the
2009 version of the procedure. As the introduction, the 2009 version is mentioned as follow: see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13
Text: “Now sleeps the crimson petal” Step 3 identification of open comparison:
SIM { ӠF, Ӡa
[F Crimson petal]t [Sleep a]}s
t= target domain s= source domain
Continuing to step 4 named as “Nonliteral analogy identification”. This step is highly interpretative, since it involves filling in the empty slots from the
output of step 3 so as to arrive at a complete nonliteral analogy borrowed from Semino et al, 2004: 1276. As Steen 1999: 68 proposed that “The fourth step
handles the reconstruction of the complete nonliteral comparison statement by inferring the implied concepts for the empty slots”. Herein, how the two versions
of the step are being applied following the reconstruction. 1.
The Steen’s Five Steps 1999 version see Steen, 1999: 67
RIDE-ON MERMAIDS WAVES ̶ SIM[Float Mermaids, Waves,
Ride-on Jockey, Horse] In this interpretation and filling in the empty slots from step 3, there
are two parts done in the analysis: the focus interpretation, whereby a literal expression replaces the metaphorical focus in the framework in
this respect Float is replacing F as the literal counterpart of Ride-on and the vehicle identification, whereby some elements of the source
domain are chosen based on the metaphorical focus to replace the empty slots represented by y and y’ in this case Jockey and Horse
replace y and y’.
2. The Steen’s Five Steps 2009 version see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13
Step 4 identification of analogical structure: SIM{[Be-inactive Crimson petal]
t
[Sleep Human]}
s
t= target domain s= source domain
Explicitly, the unknown concepts in the target domain and source domain represented by the letter F and a, are filled in by the target
concept Be-inactive and the source concept Human based on the metaphorical focus intuitively.
The last but not least of the Steen’s Five Steps is step 5. This step is named as “Nonliteral mapping identification”. According to Steen 1999: 71, he states
that “The last step in the procedure is to identify the complete nonliteral mapping. This is done by filling out the conceptual structure of the two sides of the
nonliteral analogy, the source and the target domain”. For example of step 5, a metaphorical mapping done by Kreenmayr would be surprisingly led our path of
thinking to a better understanding of the whole steps and framework see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13, 14.
Step 5 identification of cross-domain mapping: SLEEP BE-INACTIVE
HUMAN CRIMSON PETAL Inferences:
GOAL OF SLEEP GOAL OF BE-INACTIVE TIME OF SLEEP TIME OF BE-INACTIVE: NIGHT
SLEEP is mapped onto BE-INACTIVE and HUMAN is mapped onto CRIMSON PETAL.
A demonstration of the Steen’s Five Steps the 2009 version rises in the next part of this section in order to give a better understanding of the method used
in the present study. In addition, this demonstration would be done as similar as working on the real data using the Steen’s Five Steps and top – down approach
intuitively, instead of bottom – up approach. Moreover, in order to support the valid and trusted result, the use of some dictionaries would be enlightening the
discussion. Finally, we come to the existing conceptual metaphor, in this case, the one that relates to God. The concept is GOD IS LOVE. The demonstration would
be showing how the concept is followed and the evidence was found by using some supports from the Oxford Dictionary.
Text: Faith can find God even while war rages. Step 1: using the Praglejazz’s MIP
S1: Faith, God S2 : war
The sentence was found in COCA, with the word “God” as the KWIC Key Word in Context. Herein, the sentence is a complex sentence; consist of
two independent clauses, separated by the adverb “even” and the conjunction “while” as what was mentioned in the process of applying the MIP above. In
addition, the letter “S” stands for sentence, since there are two sentences, so that “S1” and “S2” were picked as their names. Moreover, by using the Praglejazz’s
MIP in the first step of the Steen’s Five Steps, the decisions were made and surprisingly it was found that two lexical units in the S1 and another lexical unit
in S2 are metaphorically used. As a reminder that in this study, the metaphorical expression related to God would be emphasized and focused. To follow
permanently the scope of discussion mentioned in the previous chapter, the metaphorical unit “war” in the S2 is having its own process of the Steen’s Five
Steps, instead of being combined with the focused matter.
Step 2: S1: P1 Faith, God
P2 can, P1 S2: P1 war, rage
P2 Time P1 while In this step 2, the lexical units decided as metaphors were classified and
categorized in propositions, symbolized as “P” followed by the number. Additionally, in this proposition, any verb or noun phrase is written as its
infinitive form or singular form. Step 3:
S1: SIM { ƷF, Ʒa
[F Faith]
t
[God a]}
s
S2: SIM { ƷF, Ʒa
[F rage]
t
[war a]}
s
In step 3, the propositions were worked mechanically by putting them in this “mathematical” formula as mentioned above in the demonstration. In
addition, “SIM” stand for similarity, the letter “F” stands for the focus of the
metaphor being analyzed and “a” is taking the role as the empty slot that needs to be filled in by another metaphorical concept and will be discussed as another
metaphorical mapping. Moreover, the target concept and source concept are shown by the subscript letters
t
and
s
. Step 4:
S1: SIM [Love Faith]
[God Human]} S2: SIM
[Be-very violent War] [Rage Fighting people]}
In this step 4, it is such an interpretative step of the steps. There are interpretations done and would be the future mapping in step 5. In addition, the
empty slots in step 3 were being filled in by some concepts. Straight to the rule, the meaning of the noun phrase or lexical unit “God” in Oxford Dictionary is
meant as person or thing that is greatly admired or loved. Therefore, in S1, the letter “F” was replaced by LOVE as the basic meaning mentioned by the
dictionary and contextually, the meaning is believable that it can deliver the context nicely. Moreover, another noun phrase in S1, “Faith” intuitively was
replaced by human contextually. Furthermore, in S2, the letter “F” was replaced by BE-VERY VIOLENT as the basic meaning of “Rage” mentioned in the
Macmillan Dictionary as a very strong feeling of anger, or violent behaviour in a public situation. Therefore, the “BE-VERY VIOLENT” was choosen to fulfill the
empty slot in “F”. finally, the noun phrase “war” was replaced by FIGHTING PEOPLE, as it is mentioned in Longman Dictionary, war is fighting between two
or more countries or between opposing groups within a country, involving large numbers of soldiers and weapons. Therefore, the FIGHTING PEOPLE was
believed that it can fulfill the slot. Step 5:
S1: GOD LOVE S2: RAGE BE-VERY VIOLENT
FAITH HUMAN WAR FIGHTING PEOPLE
Inferences: S1: Finding God Finding Love
S2: Being Rage Being Very Violent Having Faith Being Human
War Fighting People We arrived at the end of the process; it is in step 5. Four decisions were
picked as the result of the process. And, in addition, the concepts were re- described in the inferences part as the extension of the mapping. This analysis
path proposed the evidence of the conceptual metaphor, exist in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses Genesis 24:12, 14, 24:27, 32:10,
39:21, Exodus 15:13, 34:6, it is
GOD IS LOVE
. Moreover, the result proposes that “God” is mapped onto “Love”, “Faith” is mapped onto “Human”, “Rage” is
mapped onto “Being Very Violent”, and “War” is mapped onto “Fighting People”. Therefore, the preceding conceptual metaphor,
GOD IS LOVE
is proven correct and still used nowadays as a conceptual metaphor living metaphor.
Furthermore, the future analysis would be done as what has been experienced in the demonstration of the Steen’s Five Steps.
Last but not least of how the data would be analyzed in the present study, some questions would be proposed in order to reveal and prove the
correspondences of target and source domains in the discourse being analyzed. The questions are stated as real world knowledge see Ahrens 2010: 7, 9, 10. The
using of these questions to disclose the metaphorical concept in the discourse departs from Lakoff and Johnson statement 1980:3 that “Our ordinary
conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Therefore, there is a link between these real world
knowledge questions and the theory used in this present study. The questions being used merely in structural metaphor are mentioned as the following;
The real world knowledge [proposed to the source domain found]
1. What entities does the source domain have? 2. What qualities does the source domain or the entities in the source domain
have? 3a. What does the source domain do?
b. What can someone do to or in the source domain?
The real world knowledge [matching up the actual mappings correspondences that exist between the target and source domain of a
metaphorical concept]
1. What entities does the source domain have that are mapped to the target domain?
2. What qualities does the source domain or the entity in the source domain have that are mapped to the target domain?
3a. What does the source domain do that is mapped to the target domain? b. What can someone do to or in the source domain that is mapped to the target
domain?
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK