SULLE FUNZIONI DELLA METAFORA NELL’ITALIANO ACCADEMICO: UN’ANALISI CORPUS-BASED
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54103/2037-3597/30541Abstract
Questo articolo analizza l’uso della metafora nel discorso accademico italiano attraverso un approccio basato sul corpus DIA (circa 950.000 parole). Lo studio dimostra che la metafora, sebbene altamente convenzionale, svolge un ruolo strutturale nel garantire densità, precisione e impersonalità. L’analisi si concentra su quattro fenomeni chiave (similitudine, personificazione, metafore concettuali sistematiche, metafore estese) ed esamina la metafora attraverso le classi di parole (preposizioni, verbi, nomi, aggettivi, avverbi) e le sue funzioni. Lo studio conferma il ruolo sistematico e polifunzionale della metafora nella strutturazione del discorso accademico attraverso modelli lessico-grammaticali ricorrenti e mappature condivise.
On the functions of metaphor in academic Italian: a corpus-based analysis
This paper investigates the use of metaphor in Italian academic discourse through a corpus-based approach using the DIA Corpus (approx. 950,000 words). The study demonstrates that metaphor, though highly conventionalized, plays a structural role in ensuring density, precision, and impersonality. The analysis focuses on four key phenomena (simile, personification, systematic conceptual metaphors, extended metaphors) and examines the metaphor across word classes (prepositions, verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs) and its functions. The study confirms metaphor’s systematic, polyfunctional role in structuring academic discourse through recurrent lexico-grammatical patterns and shared mappings.
Downloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
Altieri Biagi M. L. (1990), L’avventura della mente. Studi sulla lingua scientifica, Morano, Napoli.
Benczes R. (2019), “Review of Conceptual Conflicts in Metaphors and Figurative Language, by Michele Prandi”, in Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6,2, pp. 370-375: https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00044.ben. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00044.ben
Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. (1999), The Longman Grammar of spoken and written English, Longman, London.
Bowdle B. F., Gentner D. (2005), “The Career of Metaphor”, in Psychological Review, 112, 1, pp. 193-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Brugman C. (1981/1988), The story of “over”: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon, tesi M.A., UC Berkeley (1981); versione ampliata pubblicata nella serie Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Garland (1988).
Calaresu E. (2025), “Significati non letterali nel discorso scientifico e accademico. Metafore, metonimie e personificazione di referenti inanimati”, in Dota M.,
Mastrantonio D., Salvatore E., Italiano accademico e dintorni. studi a margine del progetto DIA, Quaderni di italiano LinguaDue, 7, in Italiano LinguaDue, 17, 2, pp. 143-166.
Cameron L. (2003), Metaphor in educational discourse, Equinox, London.
Cameron L., Maslen R. (2010), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, Equinox, London.
Casadei F. (1996), Metafore ed espressioni idiomatiche. Uno studio semantico sull’italiano, Bulzoni, Roma.
Conte M.-E. (1999), Condizioni di coerenza. Ricerche di linguistica testuale, nuova edizione
ampliata a cura di Mortara Garavelli B., Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria. Prima edizione La Nuova Italia, Firenze (1988).
Cortelazzo M. (2011), “Scienza, lingua della”, in Simone R. (dir.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano, Roma, Treccani, pp. 1281-1283:
https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/lingua-della-scienza_(Enciclopediadell%27Italiano)/.
CREET (2006), Metaphor Analysis Project 2006, unpublished work.
Deignan A. (2005), Metaphor and corpus linguistics, John Benjamins, AmsterdamPhiladelphia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6
Fiorentino G. (2011), “Nominalizzazioni”, in Simone R. (dir.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano, Roma, Treccani, pp. 957-961: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/nominalizzazioni_(Enciclopediadell%27Italiano)/.
Gentner D., Bowdle B. F. (2008), “Metaphor as structure-mapping”, in Gibbs R. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 109-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008
Gries S. T., Stefanowitsch A. (2004a), “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus
Based Perspective on ‘Alternations’”, in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 1, pp. 97-129.
Gries S. T., Stefanowitsch A. (2004b), “Extending collostructional analysis: A Corpus-based DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
perspective on ‘complementation’”, in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 1, pp. 131-159.
Gualdo R., Telve S. (2015), Linguaggi specialistici dell’italiano, Carocci, Roma. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110360851-018
Halliday M. A. K. (1993a), “Some grammatical problems in scientific English”, in Halliday
M. A. K., Martin J. R., Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, Falmer Press, London, pp. 76-94.
Halliday M. A. K. (1993b), “The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese”, in
Halliday M. A. K., Martin J. R., Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, Falmer Press, London, pp. 137-146.
Halliday M. A. K. (2009), “Grammatical metaphor”, in Webster J. J. (ed.), The essential
Halliday, Continuum, London-New York, pp. 116-138.
Herrmann J. B. (2013), Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations, LOT, Utrecht: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/333_fulltext.pdf.
Hyland K. (2019), Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing, Bloomsbury, London.
Johnson M. (1987), The Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980), Metaphors we live by, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff G., Espenson J., Schwartz A. (1991), Master metaphor list (Second Draft), UC Berkeley Cognitive Linguistics Group, Berkeley (Technical Report).
Mastrantonio D., Sakr A., Dota M., Nardella S. (2024), “Il progetto PRIN 2022 PNRR ‘Dizionario dell’italiano accademico: forme e funzioni testuali’ (DIA): prime acquisizioni e prospettive”, in Italiano LinguaDue, 16, 2, pp. 1-42: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/27866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54103/2037-3597/27866
Mauri C., Ballarè S., Goria E., Cerruti M., Suriano F. (2019), KIParla Corpus: A new resource for spoken Italian, in Bernardi R., Navigli R., Semeraro G., Proceedings of the Sixth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bari, Italy, November 13-15, 2019: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2481/paper45.pdf.
Pragglejaz Group (2007), “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse”, in Metaphor and Symbol, 22,1, pp. 1-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Prandi M. (2017), Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language, Routledge, LondonNew York: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208763
Prandi M. (2023), Retorica. Una disciplina da rifondare, il Mulino, Bologna.
Prandi M., De Santis C. (2019), Le regole e le scelte: manuale di linguistica e di grammatica italiana, UTET Università, Torino.
Steen G. (2008), “The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor”, in Metaphor and Symbol, 23,4, pp. 213-241: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753
Steen G., Herrmann J. B., Dorst A. G., Kaal A. A., Krennmayr T., Pasma T. (2010), A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
Stefanowitsch A., Gries S. T. (2003), “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction between Words and Constructions”, in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 2, pp. 209-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
Stefanowitsch A., Gries S. T. (2005), “Covarying collexemes”, in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11, pp. 1-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
Stefanowitsch A., Gries S. T. (eds.) (2006), Corpus-Based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895
Strik Lievers F. (2023), “Types of metaphors and their structure: Annotation guidelines between theory and practice”, in Prandi M., Rossi M. (eds.), Researching metaphors. Towards a comprehensive approach, Routledge, New York-London, pp. 91-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003184041-7
Tyler A., Evans V. (2003), The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517
Wikberg K. (2007), “The Role of Corpus Linguistics in Metaphor Research”, in Johanneson N. L., Minugh D. (eds.), Selected Papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm metaphor festivals, Department of English, Stockholm University, pp. 33-48
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2025 Abdelmagid Sakr
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 4.0.
