A bottom-up analysis of the characteristics of deliberate metaphor: Variation & circulation

Since its introduction, Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) (Steen, 2008) has given rise to a lot
of debate among metaphor researchers: do deliberate metaphors really exist? If so, what
characterizes these metaphors and sets them apart from other (non-deliberate) metaphors?
Previous research on the identification of deliberate metaphors has often been done in a topdown
fashion, that is analysts use an existing list of characteristics in order to identify deliberate
metaphors in discourse. However, in order to fully understand deliberate metaphors and what
characterizes them – on a linguistic, conceptual as well as communicative level –, a bottom-up
analysis is necessary. This research seeks to further contribute to the investigation on DMT by
examining the criteria that characterize deliberate metaphors. To do so, it relies on the analysis
of metaphors in a large political corpus. For the quantitative aspect of this research, the first
step of our analysis consists of applying the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure
(DMIP), a reliable tool that was developed – from a bottom-up perspective – to identify
potentially deliberate metaphors in discourse (Reijnierse et al, in press). Building on these
quantitative results, the aim of this research is then to identify the linguistic, conceptual and
communicative criteria that characterize these potentially deliberate metaphors in a bottom-up
fashion, which constitutes the qualitative aspect of the research.
Proponents of DMT support the idea that this theory “advances metaphor studies into a
period with new and exciting research challenges and possibilities for application between
various disciplines” (Steen, 2017). It is therefore crucial to further investigate this type of
metaphor and to contribute to the development of a solid theoretical framework for DMT.