In this article, we examined implicit register marking through metaphor and metonymy. Specifically, we intended to analyse the ways in which metaphor and metonymy are used to mark register properties in selected text types. As an empirical basis for this investigation, we annotated a corpus of six text types that exhibit diversity along a number of important register properties (e.g., persuasivity, literality/orality, or hierarchical vs. equal relations between interlocutors). Our results show a strong dependence of metaphor and metonymy on persuasivity, whereas no such dependence was found with respect to literality and orality. Instead, we found a new register property, viz., length restriction, to be strongly correlated with metonymy. Previous results on a correlation between metonymy and interlocutor equality were also confirmed.


La marcatura implicita del registro in tedesco attraverso la metafora e la metonimia

In questo articolo esaminiamo la marcatura implicita del registro attraverso la metafora e la metonimia. In particolare, vogliamo analizzare i modi in cui la metafora e la metonimia vengono utilizzate per marcare le proprietà di registro in alcuni tipi di testo. Come base empirica per questa indagine, abbiamo annotato un corpus di sei tipi di testo che presentano diversità lungo una serie di importanti proprietà di registro (ad esempio, persuasività, letteralità/oralità o relazioni gerarchiche o paritarie tra interlocutori). I nostri risultati mostrano una forte dipendenza della metafora e della metonimia dalla persuasività, mentre non è stata riscontrata una simile dipendenza rispetto alla letteralità e all'oralità. Abbiamo invece riscontrato una nuova proprietà del registro, ossia la restrizione della lunghezza, fortemente correlata alla metonimia. Sono stati confermati anche i risultati precedenti sulla correlazione tra metonimia e uguaglianza degli interlocutori.


Riferimenti bibliografici

Beger A. (2015), “Metaphors in psychology genres. Counseling vs. academic lectures”, in Herrmann B., Berber Sardinha T. (eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 53-75.

Beger A. (2011), “Deliberate metaphors? Aration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures”, in, 20, pp. 39-60.

Biber D., Conrad S. (2009), Register, genre, and style, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blaette A. (2017), GermaParl. Corpus of plenary protocols of the German Bundestag, TEI files, available at:

Deignan A., Littlemore J., Semino E. (2013), Figurative language, genre and register, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dorst M. (2015), “More or different metaphors in fiction? A quantitative cross-register comparison”, in Language and Literature, 24, pp. 3-22.

Egg M. (2006), “Metonymie als Phänomen der Syntax-Semantik-Schnittstelle”, in, 6, pp. 36-53.

Egg M. (2020), “To those walking in the footsteps of the faith. Deliberate metaphor in the Pauline epistles”, in Di Biase-Dyson C., Egg M. (eds.), Drawing Attention to Metaphor, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 229-262.

Egg M., Kordoni V. (2022), “Metaphor annotation for German”, in Proceedings of LREC 2022, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, pp. 2556-2562:

Egg M., Kordoni V. (2023), “A corpus of metaphors as register markers”, in Vlachos A., Augenstein I. (eds.), Findings of EACL 2023, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Stroudsburg, PA (USA), pp. 220-226:

Goatly A. (1994), “Register and the redemption of relevance theory. The case of metaphor”, in Pragmatics, 4, pp. 139-181.

Goatly A. (20112), The language of metaphors, Routledge, London.

Grice P. (1975), “Logic and conversation”, in Cole P., Morgan J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 3: Speech acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41-58.

Harrison S. (2015), “The production line as a context for low metaphoricity. exploring links between gestures, iconicity, and artefacts on a factory shop floor”, in Herrmann B., Berber Sardinha, T. (eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 131-159.

Hasan R., Halliday M. (1985), Language, context and text, Deakin University Press, Victoria.

Herrmann B. (2015), “High on metaphor, low on simile. An examination of metaphor type in sub-registers of academic prose”, in Herrmann B., Berber Sardinha T. (eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 163-190.

Herrmann J., Woll K., Dorst A. (2019), “Linguistic metaphor identification in German”, in Nacey S., Dorst A., Krennmayr T., Reijnierse G. (eds.), Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 113-135.

Kemmann A. (2013), “Debatte”, in Rothstein B., Müller C. (eds.), Kernbegriffe der Sprachdidaktik Deutsch. Ein Handbuch, Schneider, Hohengehren, pp. 41-43.

Klie J.-C., Bugert M., Boullosa B., Eckart de Castilho R., Gurevych I. (2018), “The Inception platform: Machine-assisted and knowledge-oriented interactive annotation”, in Proceedings of COLING 2018: system demonstrations, pp. 5-9:

Koch P., Oesterreicher W. (1994), “Schriftlichkeit und Sprache”, in Günther H., Ludwig O. (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Writing and Its Use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung. An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, vol. 1, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 587-604.

Musolff A. (2016), Political Metaphor Analysis. Discourse and Scenarios, Bloomsbury Academic, London.

Nunberg G. (1979), “The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, pp. 143-184.

Krennmayr T. (2011), Metaphor in newspapers. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Qi P., Zhang Y., Zhang Y., Bolton J., Manning C. (2020), “Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages”, in Asli Celikyilmaz A., Tsung-Hsien Wen T-H (eds.), Proceedings of ACL 2020: system demonstrations, pp. 101-108:

Reijnierse G., Burgers C., Krennmayr T., Steen G. (2019), “Metaphor in communication: the distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class”, in Corpora, 14, pp. 301-326.

Ricoeur P. (1978), “The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling”, in Critical Inquiry, 5, pp. 143-159.

Ritchie D. (2013), Metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Salesky E., Wiesner M., Bremerman J., Cattoni R., Negri M., Turchi M., Oard D., Post M. (2021), “The multilingual TEDx corpus for speech recognition and translation”, in Proceedings of Interspeech 2021, pp. 3655-3659:

Stede M., Neumann A. (2014), “Potsdam commentary corpus 2.0: Annotation for discourse research”, in Calzolari N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2014, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, pp. 925-929:

Steen G., Dorst A., Herrmann B., Kaal A., Krennmayr T., Pasma, T. (2010), A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU, Benjamins, Amsterdam.