Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy 231variety of applicable models for metaphor/metonymy processing that are badly needed for
this volume and suchlike.
Another problem that hooks my attention is that in the volume little is discussed about the
methodological relationships between corpus research and other empirical methodologies.
This is related to the position of corpus-based approaches within the realm of empirical
studies. Although the method of experimental psychological investigations is mentioned (e.g.
in Martin), it is, unfortunately, not much elaborated. The reader is still left in the dark how
corpus research and experimental psychological study may be complementary, or, from a
corpus linguist‘s perspective, how experimental explorations can contribute to her work. I
might be accused of demanding too much from a collection, but my concern is advantageous,
I think, to the expansion and enhancement of empirical methods in the study of metaphor and
metonymy nonetheless.
Some of the contributions, for instance, give the impression that hasty conclusions are
drawn because the empirical evidence is far from sufficient and the findings require testing
against other resources and by other means (e.g. in Semino, Koller). To me, many of the
findings and proposals are at most hypotheses. It might be necessary for us to be well aware
of the limitations of corpora and to properly interpret the relationship held between empirical
methods and introspective ways.
The increasing interest in empirical study or the renaissance of inductive reasoning does
not necessarily mean its superiority over introspective methods. In language description,
conclusions drawn from a certain corpus have to be regarded as extrapolations, not statements
about the language. The reason is that what a corpus reveals is the frequent and the central,
not facts. However, empirical thinking does necessitate theoretical development in that it
turns our focus from the ideal to the typical. The relationship between theory and empirical
study is better seen as dynamic. I think, the dialogue between the theoretical and the empirical
will go on and on towards a best description of language. It is, therefore, not too bold to say
that ―the future of linguistics is likely to be determined by methodological issues.‖ (Geeraerts
2006: 21)
The volume could have been structured a little more so as to be more reader-friendly. The
reader might have expected that the contributions were arranged into two or three sections,
with short introductions to each section.
The papers might have been grouped according to the investigating methods used, or
whether they are methodology-oriented or case-study oriented, or the types of
metaphor/metonymy they deal with. Similarly, a conclusion that establishes connections and
puts forward future research directions would have been welcome. In addition, a couple of
printing errors in the table of contents suggest that more careful proofreading should have
been necessary.
On the whole, in my view, this is a fine collection. It offers an in-depth exploration of
metaphors and metonymies based on empirical investigations. The volume thus highlights the
potential of new ways of readdressing some long-established topics and traditional research
areas. Meanwhile, the contributions have raised further questions for us to consider (e.g.
polysemy and metaphor, in Hilpert, and Koivisto-Alanko and Tissari). In this way, this book
serves to extend the methodological tools of corpus linguistics as well as the scope of
cognitive linguistic studies.