1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of “That’s not what he meant”
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Taking the notion of the “hearer’s meaning” as distinct from the speaker’s communicative intention, and shifting from the dichotomy speaker/hearer(s) to a system of participant-roles of which speaker and hearer(s) are only two kinds, this article focuses on how religion-related metaphors such as “[[Human 1]] worship [[Human 2]]” may become the subject of controversy and discursive struggle on social media, or be fraught with scope for conflicting readings. It argues (a) that one man’s metaphor or secondary norm is another’s literal meaning, (b) that interfaith debaters or those who generally try to discuss religion may twist or reverse so-called “conceptual mappings”, conjecture hypotheses, and indulge in deductive and inductive reasoning in order to win an argument or to spark hostility, and (c) that the general public may reject metaphors (and metonymies) that are too threatening to their religious beliefs. These are documented as cases of failed framing effects. A sociocognitive approach to metaphor, or to the classical tropes in general, one that is in the spirit of Teun van Dijk, succeeds in yielding an adequate account of the phenomena. The article discusses several important implications both for metaphor theories and for religious and cultural linguistic studies.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
2025-11-24
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
    2017 “Can Cartoons Influence Americans’ Attitudes Toward Bailouts?” Visual Communication Quarterly (): –. 10.1080/15551393.2016.1230472
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2016.1230472 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2022 “Metaphorical Creativity Contributing to Multimodal Impoliteness in Political Cartoons.” Intercultural Pragmatics (): –. 10.1515/ip‑2022‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-0002 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2023 “What’s Really in a Frame? The Case of Public Marriage Proposals.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/14614456231154720
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231154720 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2024 “Frame Exploitation at its Worst: The Way Egyptian Military Doctors Make Sense of Illness and Cure.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Online First. 10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd [Google Scholar]
  5. Amsalem, Eran, and Alon Zoizner
    2022 “Real, but Limited: A Meta-analytic Assessment of Framing Effects in the Political Domain.” British Journal of Political Science (): –. 10.1017/S0007123420000253
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000253 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel, Mira
    2002 “Privileged Interactional Interpretations.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00061‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bach, Kent
    2001 “Semantically Speaking.” InPerspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, ed. byIstván Kenesei, and Robert M. Harnish, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.90.13bac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.13bac [Google Scholar]
  8. Baroni, Marco, and Silvia Bernardini
    2004 “BootCaT: Bootstrapping Corpora and Terms from the Web.” InProceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04). –. Lisbon: Elda.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bond, Michael H., and Tat-Ming Lai
    1986 “Embarrassment and Code-Switching into a Second Language.” The Journal of Social Psychology (): –. 10.1080/19401183.1986.12461512
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19401183.1986.12461512 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brewer, Paul R.
    2003 “Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights: A Framing-based Account.” Public Opinion Quarterly (): –. 10.1086/374397
     https://doi.org/10.1086/374397 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, Lynne
    2003 Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Capone, Alessandro
    2011 “Default Semantics and the Architecture of the Mind.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004 Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  14. Crystal, David
    2001 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164771
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164771 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deignan, Alice
    2005 Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjmains. 10.1075/celcr.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Druckman, James N.
    2001 “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics: –. 10.1111/0022‑3816.00100
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00100 [Google Scholar]
  17. Elder, Chi-Hé, and Michael Haugh
    2023 “Exposing and Avoiding Unwanted Inferences in Conversational Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  18. El Refaie, Elisabeth
    2011 “The Pragmatics of Humor Reception: Young People’s Responses to a Newspaper Cartoon.” Humor (): –. 10.1515/humr.2011.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
    2002 The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fetzer, Anita
    2007 “Non-acceptances in Context.” Intercultural Pragmatics (): –. 10.1515/IP.2007.025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.025 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibbs Jr, Raymond W., and Josie Siman
    2021 “How we Resist Metaphors.” Language and Cognition (): –. 10.1017/langcog.2021.18
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.18 [Google Scholar]
  22. Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti, and Ofer Fein
    2017 “The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited.” Metaphor & Symbol(): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, and Ofer Fein
    2015 “Defaultness Reigns: The Case of Sarcasm.” Metaphor and Symbol (): –. 10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804 [Google Scholar]
  24. Glucksberg, Sam, and Boaz Keysar
    1993 “How metaphors work.” InMetaphor and thought, ed. byAndrew Ortony, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1978 “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics IX: Pragmatics, ed. byPeter Cole, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368873_006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hall, Stuart
    1980 “Encoding/Decoding.” InCulture, Media, Language, ed. byStuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Tillis, –. London: Hutchinson.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hanks, Patrick
    2013 Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Marina Terkourafi
    2023 “We need to talk about Hearer’s Meaning!.” Journal of pragmatics: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Haugh, Michael
    2008 “Intention and Diverging Interpretings of Implicature in the ‘Meat’ Sermon.” Intercultural Pragmatics (): –. 10.1515/IP.2008.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.011 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2010 “When is an Email Really Offensive? Argumentativity and Variability in Evaluations of Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research (): –. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Henley, Jon
    2008, August6. “Bad Metaphors and Labour’s Sinking Ship.” The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/aug/06/labour.johnprescott
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Herzing, Denise L.
    2024 Is Anyone Listening? What Animals Are Saying to Each Other and to Us. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226357522.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226357522.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoey, Michael
    2005 Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hogsette, David S.
    2019 Writing that Makes Sense: Critical Thinking in College Composition. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hülzer-Vogt, Heike
    1989 “‘Du machst dir Sorgen’: Eine Studie zu Kommunikationskonflikten durch Metaphern am Beispiel eines Unterrichsdiskurses.” InDialoganalyse II: Referate der 2. Arbeitstagung, Bochum 1988, Band 2, ed. byEdda Weigand, and Franz Hundsnurscher, –. Berlin, New York: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783111566672.357
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111566672.357 [Google Scholar]
  38. 1991 Kippfigur Metapher — metaphernbedingte Kommunikationskonflikte in Gesprächen. Vallendar: Schönstatt-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Jaszczolt, Kasia M.
    2009 Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199214433.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199214433.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas
    1983 Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kahneman, Daniel
    2011 Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kecskés, István
    2014 Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kendrick, Kobin H., Penelope Brown, Mark Dingemanse, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Kaoru Hayano, Elliott Hoey
    2020 “Sequence Organization: A Universal Infrastructure for Social Action.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrž, and David Tugwell
    2004 “The Sketch Engine.” InProceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX, ed. byGeoffrey Williams, and Sandra Vessier, –. Lorient: Université De Bretagne Sud.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2005 Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2020 Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner
    1989 More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Langton, Rae
    1993 “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.” Philosophy and Public Affairs: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee, Joan Hwechong
    2011 “What does Texting Do 2 Language? The Influences of Exposure to Messaging and Print Media on Acceptability Constraints.” Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. Retrieved fromhttps://ucalgary.scholaris.ca. 10.11575/PRISM/22455
     https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/22455 [Google Scholar]
  53. Leth, Palle
    2021 “Utterance Interpretation and Actual Intentions.” Axiomathes: –. 10.1007/s10516‑019‑09462‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-019-09462-x [Google Scholar]
  54. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Littlemore, Jeannette
    2015 Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Luckhardt, C. Grant, and William Bechtel
    1994 How to Do Things with Logic. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mars-Jones, Adams
    2003, August10. “Real science fiction.” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/aug/10/scienceandnature.features
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Müller, Cornelia
    2008 Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Musolff, Andreas
    2016 Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 2022 “‘World-beating’ Pandemic Responses: Ironical, Sarcastic, and Satirical Use of War and Competition Metaphors in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic.” Metaphor and Symbol (): –, 10.1080/10926488.2021.1932505
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1932505 [Google Scholar]
  61. Group, Pragglejaz
    2007 “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol (): –. 10.1080/10926480709336752
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ray, Saptarshi
    2014, April16. “Found in Translation … When Misquoting Someone is the Best Way to be Fair and Accurate.” The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/apr/16/mind-your-language-quote-unquote
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Reagle, Joseph M.
    2015 Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ritchie, L. David
    2022 Feeling, Thinking, and Talking: How the Embodied Brain Shapes Everyday Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108979566
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108979566 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1972 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” InOn the Dimensions of Sociolinguistics, ed. byJohn J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, –. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 10.1515/9783110880434‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880434-006 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  67. Semino, Elena
    2020 “‘Not Soldiers but Fire-fighters’ — Metaphors and Covid-19.” Health Communication (): –. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989 [Google Scholar]
  68. Shovel, Martin
    2010, December20. “This Figure of Speech isn’t Dead ― It’s just Resting.” The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2010/dec/20/plain-english-metaphors-mind-your-language
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance Theory: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sutherland, John
    2002 “‘Cn u txt?’” The Guardian, November 11 2002: available onlinehttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2002/nov/11/mobilephones2
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Tannen, Deborah
    1992 That’s Not What I Meant. How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. London: Virago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Thomas, Jenny
    1983 “Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics (): –. 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  73. Thurlow, Crispin, and Alex Brown
    2003 “Generation Txt: The Sociolinguistics of Young People’s Text Messaging.” Discourse Analysis Online (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Toivo, Wilhelmiina, Christoph Scheepers, and Jean-Marc Dewaele
    2024 “RER-LX: A New Scale to Measure Reduced Emotional Resonance in Bilinguals’ Later Learnt Language.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (): –. 10.1017/S1366728923000561
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000561 [Google Scholar]
  75. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2014 Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  76. van Dijk, Teun A., and Walter Kintsch
    1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Watts, Jonathan
    2019, January20. “How to Stop the Climate Crisis: Six Lessons from the Campaign that Saved the Ozone.” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/20/how-to-stop-the-climate-crisis-six-lessons-from-the-campaign-that-saved-the-ozone
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Weigand, Eda
    2023 “Principles of New Science: Dialogue between Science and Philosophy.” Language and Dialogue (): –. 10.1075/ld.00142.wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00142.wei [Google Scholar]
  79. Willis, Ken
    2005 “Merry Hell: Humour Competence and Social Incompetence.” InBeyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, ed. bySharon Lockyer, and Michael Pickering, –. Houndsmill and New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230236776_7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230236776_7 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1992 “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua: –. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
Loading
“That’s not what he meant”
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00141.abd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: discursive dispute ; default meaning ; failed framing effects ; social media ; religion-related metaphor ; Hearer’s meaning

Most Cited

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