# Methods of Annotating and Identifying Metaphors in the Field of Natural Language Processing
## 3 Annotating Metaphors
### Annotating Linguistic Metaphors
It should be noted that both the MIP and MIPVU procedures are primarily designed to identify metaphors in the English language, and the application of these methods in other languages requires adaptation to the specifics of each language. [PERSON] et al. (2018) provides an overview of the challenges faced by researchers when applying the MIPVU procedure in Dutch, German, Lithuanian, Polish, Serbian, Uzbek, Chinese and Sesotho. For instance, [PERSON] et al. (2019) adapted the MIPVU to the Serbian language and found that reflexive verbs need to be viewed as one lexical unit, and a preposition followed by a negative pronoun should be divided into two lexical units (e.g., _ni s kin (with no one)_) should be divided into the first unit, _\"ni s\"_ (_\"with no\"_), and the second unit, _\"kin\"_ (_\"one\"_). An additional specificity of Serbian, which does not exist in English, are cases or metaphors expressed by cases--oblique cases (genitive, dative, instrumental and accusative), which, when used without a preposition, can encode metaphor. In order to \"capture\" a metaphor in oblique cases, the authors propose an additional step in the MIPVU procedure, noting that their proposal is a preliminary solution that will certainly be further developed and improved over time. When determining contextual and basic meaning and whether cross-domain mapping has occurred, the MIP and MIPVU recommend the use of dictionaries, but here again we encounter a challenge if we adapt the methods to other languages, since languages with small resources simply do not have such a developed lexicography as is the case with the English language. At the time when [PERSON] et al. [16] developed the MIPVU, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13] also developed an annotation scheme based on the MIP method, but extended it to annotate conceptual metaphors, in addition to annotating linguistic metaphors themselves, i.e., metaphorical expressions. [PERSON] and [PERSON] concentrate on verbs, since, as they state, previous research has shown that in more than 50% of cases metaphors are expressed by verbs. In order to determine the source and target domains, using the Master Metaphor List [20], the authors define a list of the most common and general categories of the conceptual metaphor. The data that have been annotated are texts from the British National Corpus, from five registers--fiction (5293 words), newspaper articles (2086 words), research articles (1485 words), essays on politics, international relations, and sociology (2950 words) and transcribed radio broadcasts (1828 words)--a total of 13,642 words or 761 sentences [11]. Annotation takes place in two steps, where in the first step the MIP method is applied, and in the second the source and target domains are annotated for each identified linguistic metaphor. In their research, [PERSON] et al. [21] divide annotators into two groups, Team A and Team B, where both groups have the same data set--conversations between patients and doctors about arthritis and selected texts from the British National Corpus. Each team receives different instructions on how to annotate. Team A is instructed to annotate interesting stretch expressions or words whose (1) actual meaning is not physical, (2) meaning in another context may be physical and of the same syntactic nature, (3) physical meaning is related to the abstract meaning. It is evident from the instructions that they describe a conceptual metaphor, but the metaphor is not mentioned in the instructions themselves, and the interesting stretch words do not refer to the metaphor in any way. The authors of the report state that Team A was soon disbanded because it was noticed that a lot of polysemy was annotated.