Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • SN-0028 Untitled

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Story Title

Collection Date: 12th January 2009
Scholar #1 Info: (if more than one scholar's process is described, copy this set for each scholar)

  • Name: anonymous
  • Email:
  • Title:
  • Institution/Organization:
  • Field of Study/Creative Endeavor: English / Linguistics

Collector Info (can be the same as "Scholar" above):

  • Name: Martin Wynne
  • Email: martin.wynne@oucs.ox.ac.uk
  • Title:
  • Institution/Organization: University of Oxford

Story for Bamboo

A researcher in an English department is studying metaphor in literary and non-literary texts. They approach the phenomenon from vaarious points of view and with various approaches. They are interested in describing the forms and functions of metaphors in texts, in identifying and classifying metaphors, and understanding what these findings can contribute to general theories of grammar, style and cognition.

In order to conduct a more well-founded and intensive empirical study, the researcher sets up an international interest group, which selects a text, each individual identifies and categorises all metaphors in the text, and then they meet together (in one physical location) approximately once per year and compare and discuss their analyses, thus testing, refining and further developing the analytic scheme, and discussing the theoretical implications of their findings, as well as their problems and differneces. They publish regularly, individually, and (more rarely) in jointly authored papers. This has taken place over the past 10 years or so, and goes on. No external funding, or computational tools were necessary for this work, although the researchers realised that online collaborative analysis tools would make more of this work possible.

In order to take things a step further, and to conduct a wider empirical study, allowing comparison of text genres, and some intimation of frequencies of metaphorical forms, the researcher decided to apply some corpus linguistic resources and methods. Significant external funding was acquired, a big team of graduate students hired, and corpus linguistics consultants co-opted. Together with the consultants, a small corpus (a subset of an existing standard reference corpus, using well-documented, standard formats) was adopted, and a formal system of tagging metaphors was devised, using well-documented standards (TEI). The consultants (including the current author) selected the corpus texts, devised the tagging formalism, adapted the corpus XML schema to incorporate the metaphor tags, indexed the corpus for an analysis tool (concordancer), and ran a training session for the project team (including IT support staff).

Outcomes:
- test and refine the analytical scheme by having to account for every occurrence in a corpus
- train young researchers and provide data and projects for PhDs
- produce reusable dataset for internal and external use (e.g. for discussion in international research group)
- analysis of annotated corpus, providing frequency profiles of metaphors in different text types
- capacity building: a team of young researchers and IT support staff who know how to work with XML, TEI, Oxygen, Xaira;
- concrete deliverables for funding bodies (the annotated corpus).

Notes on Methodology:

Please briefly describe the collection methods used (eg. "self report", "questionnaire", "ethnographic interview")

Scope

The scope section is provided by the collector, with input from the scholar(s), and attempts to estimate the scope of the group that performs the processes described: How broadly do the practices described in this story apply to others in same field, in related fields, etc?

  1. In the opinion of the scholar, who participates in the process the story describes?
    (e.g. "just this scholar", "many people in the scholar's field of inquiry", "all academics", etc.)
  2. What is this process intended to accomplish for the scholar?
  3. Who is the intended audience of the processes described?
  4. Is this the only process the scholar uses to accomplish his/her goals?
  5. What "shared services" would help transform the story into something of more benefit for the scholar or his/her audience?  What process or processes in the story could be automated?

Keywords

Please provide some keywords that will allow us to group or cluster related stories--or aspects of stories.

1. Was this story collected for a particular Bamboo working group?  If so, please include, as keywords, the appropriate group(s).

  • Education
  • Institutional Support
  • Scholarly Networking
  • Shared Services
  • Stories
  • Tools and Content Partners

2. Suggested keywords: Does this story contain elements that could be mapped to these keywords?  If so, please indicate which ones and briefly describe the mapping.  Add any additional keywords in #3. (These are global keywords from this page keywords)

3. Please list additional keywords here:

4. Related Stories: Are there parts of the story that relate to other collected stories? Please provide title(s) and link to the story page. 

Story

Please include the text, documents, media, or other material which comprise this story

Other Comments:


Link

Notes

Example Link