Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I (Con)Textualizing Discourses
- Part II Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
- 6 Sequence Organization: Understanding What Drives Talk
- 7 Doing Micro-Analysis of Discourse: The Case of Ageing and Wellbeing
- 8 Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies
- 9 Cognitive Linguistic and Experimental Methods in Critical Discourse Studies
- 10 Metaphor, Metonymy and Framing in Discourse
- 11 Poststructuralist Discourse Studies: From Structure to Practice
- Part III Discourse Materialities and Embodiment
- Part IV (Trans)Locations and Intersections
- Part V Ethics, Inequality and Inclusion
- Part VI Discourses, Publics and Mediatization
- Index
- References
10 - Metaphor, Metonymy and Framing in Discourse
from Part II - Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I (Con)Textualizing Discourses
- Part II Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
- 6 Sequence Organization: Understanding What Drives Talk
- 7 Doing Micro-Analysis of Discourse: The Case of Ageing and Wellbeing
- 8 Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies
- 9 Cognitive Linguistic and Experimental Methods in Critical Discourse Studies
- 10 Metaphor, Metonymy and Framing in Discourse
- 11 Poststructuralist Discourse Studies: From Structure to Practice
- Part III Discourse Materialities and Embodiment
- Part IV (Trans)Locations and Intersections
- Part V Ethics, Inequality and Inclusion
- Part VI Discourses, Publics and Mediatization
- Index
- References
Summary
Metaphor involves the perception of similarities or correspondences between unlike entities and processes, so that one can experience, think and communicate about one thing in terms of another – lives as journeys, minds as machines, emotions as external forces, and so on. A consistent thread in the history of the study of metaphor concerns the potential of different metaphor choices to reflect and facilitate different ways of viewing topics or phenomena – a function of metaphor that is itself metaphorically captured by the notion of “framing.” The related phenomenon of metonymy, although less well studied in these terms, also facilitates framing in discourse. In this chapter, we review research on the framing power of metaphor and metonymy, with a particular focus on studies that are relevant to or directly concerned with the use of metaphor in discourse, broadly conceived. We begin with an overview of rhetorical approaches to metaphor as a tool for persuasion and of cognitive approaches to metaphor as a tool for thinking, including both theoretical and empirical studies. We review a variety of studies that have investigated the framing function of metaphor, and, to a lesser extent, metonymy, in authentic language use from a range of sources (e.g. politics, science and education) and using different qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Focusing on metaphor, where the evidence is most robust, we critically examine the relationship between, broadly speaking, cognitive and discourse-based approaches to metaphor. We go on to provide a concrete example of the framing function of metaphor in healthcare discourse, and show how cognitive and discourse perspectives can be usefully combined into a multilevel analytical framework that can, among other things, be used to make recommendations for professional practice and training.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies , pp. 213 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Further Reading
This shows how metaphor and metonymy are used to promote particular interpretations of a conflict event in Russia. It is argued that, in this way, the structure of the event itself is modified.
This outlines cognitive, discourse-analytic and practice-based perspectives to metaphor and framing, arguing that each is best suited for particular types of research goals. It sets out a blueprint for how different approaches to metaphor and framing can be integrated into a coherent model.
This is a review of the state of knowledge on how and under what conditions metaphors have been found to shape thinking. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as key challenges and opportunities for future research, are highlighted throughout.
Pinelli, E. (2016). The Role of Metaphor and Metonymy in Framing Terrorism: The Case of the Beslan School Siege in the Russian Media. Metaphor and the Social World 6(1): 134–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z. and Demmen, J. (2018). An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5): 625–45.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K. and Boroditsky, L. (2017). How Linguistic Metaphor Scaffolds Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science 21(11): 852–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Appleton, L. and Flynn, M. (2014). Searching for the New Normal: Exploring the Role of Language and Metaphors in Becoming a Cancer Survivor. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 18(4): 378–84.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A. and Steen, G. J. (2017). The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review. Metaphor and Symbol 32(2): 118–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2011). Metaphor and Reconciliation: The Discourse Dynamics of Empathy in Post-Conflict Conversations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2017). Using Metaphor for Peace-Building, Empathy and Reconciliation. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 426–42.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2006). The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4): 671–90.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Low, G. and Maslen, R. (2010). Finding Systematicity in Metaphor Use. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R. (eds.) Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox. 116–46.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J. and Semino, E. (2013). Figurative Language, Genre and Register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2001). Metaphors We Discriminate By: Naturalized Themes in Austrian Newspaper Articles about Asylum Seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(3): 352–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222–53.Google Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T. and Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War Metaphors in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 33(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. and Cameron, L. (2008). The Social-Cognitive Dynamics of Metaphor Performance. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 9(1–2): 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (2017). Using Metaphor to Influence Public Perceptions and Policy: How Metaphors Can Save the World. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 443–54.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2017). Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. J. (2017). Metaphor and Intertextuality in Media Framings of the (1984–85) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal Analysis. Discourse and Communication 11(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Hauser, D. and Schwarz, N. (2015). The War on Prevention: Bellicose Cancer Metaphors Hurt (Some) Prevention Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(1): 66–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
L’Hôte, E. (2014). Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2001). September 11. Metaphorik.de. www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/lakoff-september11.htm.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2010). Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication 4(1): 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. [1690](1979). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahon, J. E. (1999). Getting Your Sources Right: What Aristotle Didn’t Say. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. (eds.) Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartney, M. (2014). The Fight Is On: Military Metaphors for Cancer May Harm Patients. British Medical Journal 349: g5155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In Winston, P. (ed.) Knowledge and Cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 201–310.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21(1): 23–38.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (2009). “The Post-Antibiotic Apocalypse” and the “War on Superbugs”: Catastrophe Discourse in Microbiology, Its Rhetorical Form and Political Function. Public Understandings of Science 18(5): 574–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinelli, E. (2016). The Role of Metaphor and Metonymy in Framing Terrorism: The Case of the Beslan School Siege in the Russian Media. Metaphor and the Social World 6(1): 134–55.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. and Cameron, L. (2014). Open Hearts or Smoke and Mirrors: Metaphorical Framing and Frame Conflicts in a Public Meeting. Metaphor and Symbol 29(3): 204–23.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1993). Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought Cambridge, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 137–63.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (2017). The Cancer Card: Metaphor and Humour in Online Interactions about the Experience of Cancer. In Hampe, B. (ed.) Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 181–99.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Koller, V. (2009). Metaphor, Politics and Gender: A Case Study from Italy. In Ahrens, K. (ed.) Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z. and Demmen, J. (2018). An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5): 625–45.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S. and Rayson, P. (2018). Metaphor, Cancer, and the End of Life: A Corpus-Based Study. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T. and Pasma, T. (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tay, D. (2017). Using Metaphor in Healthcare: Mental Health. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 371–84.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2): e16782.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K. and Boroditsky, L. (2017). How Linguistic Metaphor Scaffolds Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science 21(11): 852–63.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. (2007). Discourse Metaphors: The Link between Figurative Language and Habitual Analogies. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3): 445–66.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by