Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The philosophical idea of anthropocentrism viewing human beings as the most significant entities has been put forward in various metaphor studies within cognitive linguistics. As Talmy (2002) claims, people choose to animate a very large part of their reality and this happens due to embodiment, as Lakoff (1987) , and Lakoff and Johnson (1999) argue. Anthropocentricity can also be explained by Croft’s Extended Animacy Hierarchy system ( 2002 ) in terms of human beings outranking animate and inanimate entities, strongly implying that inanimate entities tend to be perceived as inferior. However, this paper argues that anthropocentrism is bidirectional, since not only do we ascribe human or animate qualities to inanimate objects or phenomena, but we also tend to “de-animate” human beings by attributing inanimate qualities to them. This paper further explores the idea of anthropocentricity by focusing on the metaphorical conceptualization of issues concerning the adoption in 2015 and the refugee crisis in 2015–2016, two real-life phenomena that have significantly affected social life in Lithuania. The paper thus aims to investigate how animation of the and de-animation of refugees is metaphorically conceptualized in the Lithuanian media and what rhetorical implications arise from this. The research is conducted within the framework of Critical Metaphor Analysis ( Charteris-Black, 2005/2011 , 2014 ; Musolff, 2004 ; Hart 2010 , etc.), which suggests that metaphors are used as an argumentative tool seeking to manipulate the audience. The paper therefore argues that the animation of the euro and “de-animation” of refugees carry serious rhetorical implications and reveal the attitudes of society towards the phenomena analyzed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Cameron, L.
    (1999) Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2005/2011) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2014) Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (2002) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840579
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840579 [Google Scholar]
  5. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gibbs, R.
    (2014) Embodied metaphor. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp.167–184). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hart, C.
    (2010) Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science. New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230299009
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2016) Discourse, grammar and ideology. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2016, 23July). Understanding Trump. Retrieved fromhttps://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/
  14. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980/2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, R. W.
    (1990) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Leyens, J. P. , Cortes, B. , Demoulin, S. , Dovidio, J. F. , Fiske, S. T. , Gaunt, R. , & Vaes, J.
    (2003) Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism: The 2002 Tajfel lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703–717.10.1002/ejsp.170
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.170 [Google Scholar]
  19. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor in political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Narayanan, S.
    (1997) KARMA: Knowledge-based active representations for metaphor and aspect. MS thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nerlich, B. , & Koteyko, N.
    (2009) MRSA – portrait of a superbug: A media drama in three acts. In A. Musolff & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp.153–168). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Paulauskas, J.
    (2015) Sisteminis lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Systemic Dictionary of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Electronic version lkiis.lki.lt.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Steen, G. , Dorst, A. , Herrmann, B. , Kaal, A. , Krennmayr, T. , & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A Method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  26. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Zlatev, J.
    (2007) Spatial Semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error