1887
Volume 18, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Brexit, i.e. the withdrawal of the from the , is an event, which, regardless of its course and destination, has had a lasting impact on international politics. This paper offers a cognitive linguistic perspective on Brexit and investigates its conceptual metaphorizations on the first days after the referendum. The paper compares data from and non- media. The perspective adopted is that of Socio-Cognitive Studies in combination with quantitative analysis. The findings suggest there are significant differences between source domains and continental ones, e.g. overall metaphor use throughout the period is more pronounced in the sub-dataset; in the sub-dataset, metaphorizations characterize either a ‘break-up’ between ‘two Britains’ or an ‘break-up’; and are more frequently used in the , while is more prominent in the continental sub-dataset. Overall, a preference for inanimate source domains characterizes both sub-datasets.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19005.tin
2019-10-29
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca
    2016 “The Vocal Euro-outsider: The UK in a Two-speed Europe.” The Political Quarterly87 (2): 238–246. 10.1111/1467‑923X.12265
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12265 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, Charlotte Galpin, and Ben Rosamond
    2017 “Performing Brexit: How a Post-Brexit World Is Imagined Outside the United Kingdom.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations19 (3): 573–591. 10.1177/1369148117711092
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117711092 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexandre-Collier, Agnès
    2015 “Euroscepticism under Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron: From Theory to Practice”. Observatoire de la Société Britannique. journals.openedition.org/osb/1778. 10.4000/osb.1778
    https://doi.org/10.4000/osb.1778 [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, Jeremy
    2019Britain and Europe: A Short History. London: Hurst and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner
    2005 “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review112 (1): 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2005Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clarke, Harold, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley
    2017 “Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote.” Parliamentary Affairs70 (3): 439–464. 10.1093/pa/gsx005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx005 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Beaugrande, Robert, and Wolfgang Dressler
    1981Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  9. de Burca, Grainne
    2018 “How British was the Brexit vote?” InBrexit and Beyond, ed. byBenjamin Martill, and Uta Staiger, 46–54. London: UCL Press. 10.2307/j.ctt20krxf8.10
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt20krxf8.10 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deignan, Alice
    2005Metaphor and Data Set Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Đurović, Tatjana, and Nadežda Silaški
    2018 “The End of a Long and Fraught Marriage: Metaphorical Images Structuring the Brexit Discourse.” Metaphor and the Social World8 (1): 25–39. 10.1075/msw.17010.dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.17010.dur [Google Scholar]
  12. Glucksberg, Sam
    2008 “How Metaphors Create Categories – Quickly.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond W. Gibbs, 67–84. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hanhimäki, Jussi
  14. Hansson, Sten
    2019 “Brexit and Blame Avoidance: Officeholders’ Discursive Strategies of Self-preservation.” InDiscourses of Brexit, ed. byVeronika Koller, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer, 191–207. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351041867‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351041867-12 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kalogeropoulos, Antonis, Richard Fletcher, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
    2019 “News Brand Attribution in Distributed Environments: Do People Know Where They Get Their News?” New Media and Society21 (3): 583–601. 10.1177/1461444818801313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818801313 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalogeropoulos, Antonis, Samuel Negredo, Ike Picone, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
    2017 “Who Shares and Comments on News?: A Cross-National Comparative Analysis of Online and Social Media Participation.” Social Media and Society, Oct-Dec: 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koller, Veronika, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer
    2019Discourses of Brexit. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351041867
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351041867 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2018 “Metaphor in Media Language and Cognition: A Perspective from Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. The Journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Warsaw: De Gruyter OpenIII (1): 124–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2019 “Brexit and the Imaginary of ‘Crisis’: A Discourse Conceptual Analysis of European News Media”. Critical Discourse Studies. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2019.1592001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1592001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George
    2002Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009The Neural Theory of Metaphor. doi:  10.2139/ssrn.1437794
    https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1437794 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014 “SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President.” georgelakoff.com/2014/01/27/sotu-2014-the-cognitive-power-of-the-president/
  23. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999Philosophy in the Flesh. London: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Martill, Benjamin, and Uta Staiger
    2018Brexit and Beyond. London: UCL Press. 10.2307/j.ctt20krxf8
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt20krxf8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Morozova, Olena
    2017 “Monomodal and Multimodal Instantiations of Conceptual Metaphors of Brexit.” Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. The Journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter OpenII (2): 250–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Musolff, Andreas
    2006 “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol21 (1): 23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 “Truths, Lies and Figurative Scenarios – Metaphors at the Heart of Brexit.” Journal of Language and Politics16 (5): 641–657. doi:  10.1075/jlp.16033.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16033.mus [Google Scholar]
  30. 2019 “Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse.” Mythos-Magazin: Politisches Framing1. http//www.mythosmagazin.de/politisches_framing/am_metaphor-framing.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, et al
    2017Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group 2007 “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol22 (1): 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ringmar, Erik
    2008 “Metaphors of Social Order.” InPolitical Language and Metaphor, ed. byTerrell F. Carver, and Jernej Pikalo, 57–93. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosch, Eleanor
    1973 “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology4: 328–50. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1975 “Cognitive Reference Points.” Cognitive Psychology7: 532–47. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90021‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90021-3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Semino, Elena
    2008Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sharifian, Farzad
    2011Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Steen, Gerard, Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Tryntje Pasma
    2010A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2006 “Dataset-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy.” InDataset-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, ed. byAnatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries, 1–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199895.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895.1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylor, John R.
    2003Linguistic Categorization (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tincheva, Nelly
    2019 “Conceptualizing Brexit: First Post-referendum Days’ Dynamics in Metaphorization.” International Journal of Language and Culture6 (2). 10.1075/ijolc.17012.tin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.17012.tin [Google Scholar]
  43. Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jorg Schmid
    2006An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2017 Socio-Cognitive Discourse Studies. InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse, ed. byJohn Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, 26–44. Routledge: New York. 10.4324/9781315739342‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Walter, Jochen, and Jan Helmig
    2008 “Discursive Metaphor Analysis: (De)construction(s) of Europe.” InPolitical Language and Metaphor, ed. byTerrell F. Carver, and Jernej Pikalo, 119–131. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Werth, Paul
    1999Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wodak, Ruth
    2014 “Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)”. InInternational Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKaren Tracy, 275–287. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 “We Have the Character of an Island Nation: A Discourse-historical Analysis of David Cameron’s “Bloomberg Speech” on the European Union.” cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/42804/RSCAS_2016_36.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  49. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    eds. 2015Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (3rd edn.). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zappettini, Franco
    2018 “Europe at a Critical Legitimacy Juncture: Which People, Whose Values?” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332143290_Europe_at_a_critical_legitimacy_juncture_which_people_whose_values
  51. Zappettini, Franco, and Michał Krzyżanowski
    2019 “The Critical Juncture of Brexit in Media and Political Discourses: From National-populist Imaginary to Cross-national Social and Political Crisis”. Critical Discourse Studies, 1–8. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2019.1592767
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1592767 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19005.tin
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19005.tin
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Brexit , conceptualization , metaphor , non-uk eu media , online media and uk media
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