Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Within the emerging paradigm of experimental Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper investigates the framing effects of dehumanising vs militarising metaphors in anti-immigration discourses. These metaphors are characterised as ‘extreme metaphors’ in so far as they are manifestly metaphorical and obviously inflammatory. Attested examples of these metaphors in political and media discourses are identified and critically analysed before their potential framing effects are investigated experimentally.

Contrary to predictions, alternative metaphors did not increase support for actions and evaluations consistent with the unique framings that they present. In fact, extreme metaphors decreased support for anti-immigration sentiments and hostile immigration policies compared to literal framings. It seems that extreme metaphors alert readers to the metaphorical framing being presented so that, among certain groups of people, the framing is more readily scrutinised and rejected, prompting readers adopt more sympathetic attitudes toward immigration. The implications of these findings for Critical Discourse Analysis are discussed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Behrend, Tara S., David J. Sharek, Adam W. Meade, and Eric N. Weibe
    2011 “The Viability of Crowdsourcing for Survey Research.” Behaviour Research Methods43: 800–13. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0081‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen
    2017 “The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review”. Metaphor and Symbol32 (2): 118–134. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623 [Google Scholar]
  3. Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling
    2011 “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, yet High-Quality, Data?Perspectives on Psychological Science6 (1): 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 [Google Scholar]
  4. Catalano, Theresa and Andreas Musolff
    2019 “‘Taking the Shackles off’: Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S”. Metaphorik.de29.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chandler, Jesse, Pam Mueller, and Gabriele Paolacci
    2014 Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers: Consequences and Solutions for Behavioral Researchers. Behavior Research Methods46(1): 112–30. 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0365‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006 “Britain as a Container: Immigration Metaphors in the 2005 Election Campaign. Discourse & Society17(5): 563–581. 10.1177/0957926506066345
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506066345 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chilton, Paul
    2005 “Manipulation, Memes and Metaphors: The Case of Mein Kampf.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, edited byLouis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 15–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.03chi [Google Scholar]
  9. Crump, Matthew J. C., John V. McDonnel, and Todd M. Gureckis
    2013 “Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioural Research.” PLoS ONE8 e57410. 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 [Google Scholar]
  10. DeVellis, Robert F.
    2012Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. de Lavalette, Kiki Y. R., Conia Andone, and Gerard J. Steen
    2019a “Figurative Analogies and How They are Resisted in British Public Bill Committee Debates.” Metaphor and the Social World9(1): 107–130. 10.1075/msw.17027.lav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.17027.lav [Google Scholar]
  12. 2019b “ ‘I Did Not Say that the Government Should Be Plundering Anybody’s Savings’: Resistance to Metaphors Expressing Starting Points in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics18(5): 718–738. 10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren [Google Scholar]
  13. El Refaie, Elizabeth
    2001 “Metaphors We Discriminate by: Naturalized Themes in Austrian Newspaper Articles about Asylum Seekers.” Journal of Sociolinguistics5 (3): 352–71. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00154 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003 “Understanding Visual Metaphor: The Example of Newspaper Cartoons.” Visual Communication2 (1): 75–96. 10.1177/1470357203002001755
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001755 [Google Scholar]
  15. Entman, Robert M.
    1993 “Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ethical Journalism Network
    Ethical Journalism Network 2015Moving Stories. International Review of How Media Cover Migration. London: Ethical Journalism Network.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1995Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Charles
    1982 “Frame Semantics.” InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, edited byLinguistics Society of Korea, 111–37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1985 “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di SemanticaVI (2): 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fuoli, Matteo and Christopher Hart
    2018 “Trust-Building Strategies in Corporate Discourse: An Experimental Study. Discourse & Society29(5): 514–552. 10.1177/0957926518770264
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770264 [Google Scholar]
  24. Flusberg, Stephen J., Mark Lauria, and Paul H. Thibodeau
    2018 “Metaphor Framing in Multiple Communication Modalities. InProceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 374–79. Madison, WI.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Giese, Stephanie and Christian Baden
    2014 “Putting the Image back into the Frame: Modelling the Linkage between Visual Communication and Frame-Processing Theory.” Communication Theory25(1): 46–69. 10.1111/comt.12048
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12048 [Google Scholar]
  26. Graber, Doris A.
    1990 “Seeing is Remembering: How Visuals Contribute to Learning from Television News. Journal of Communication40 (3): 134–155. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1990.tb02275.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02275.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Hart, Christopher
    2010Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230299009
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017 “Metaphor and Intertextuality in Media Framings of the (1984–85) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal Analysis.” Discourse & Communication11(1): 3–30. 10.1177/1750481316683291
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316683291 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018a “‘Riots Engulfed the City’: An Experimental Study Investigating the Legitimating Effects of Fire Metaphors in Discourses of Disorder.” Discourse & Society29(3): 279–298. 10.1177/0957926517734663
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734663 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2018b “Event-Frames Affect Blame Assignment and Perception of Aggression: An Experimental Case Study in CDA.” Applied Linguistics39(3): 400–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hart, Christopher and Matteo Fuoli
    2020 “Objectification Strategies Outperform Subjectification Strategies in Military Interventionist Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics162: 17–28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hartman, Todd K.
    2012 “Toll Booths on the Information Superhighway? Policy Metaphors in the Case of Net Neutrality.” Political Communication29(3): 278–298. 10.1080/10584609.2012.694983
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.694983 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hauser, David J., Pheobe C. Ellsworth, and Richard Gonzalez
    2018 “Are Manipulation Checks Necessary?” Frontiers in Psychology9: 998. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jeffries, Stuart
    2014 “‘Swamped’ and ‘Riddled’: The Toxic Words that Wreck Public Discourse.” Guardian, Octoboer27 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/27/swamped-and-riddled-toxic-phrases-wreck-politics-immigration-michael-fallon
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kampf, Zohar and Yossi David
    2019 “Too Good to Be True: The Effect of Conciliatory Message Design on Compromising Attitudes in Intractable Conflicts.” Discourse & Society30(3): 264–286. 10.1177/0957926519828030
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519828030 [Google Scholar]
  36. Klein, Richard A., Kate A. Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello, Reginald B. Adams Jr., Štěpán Bahnik, Michael J. Bernstein, Konrad Bocian
    2014 “Investigating Variation in Replicability.” Social Psychology45: 142–152. 10.1027/1864‑9335/a000178
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 [Google Scholar]
  37. Koller, Veronika
    2004Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230511286
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511286 [Google Scholar]
  38. Krzyżanowski, Michal
    2018 “Discursive Shifts in Ethno-Nationalist Politics: On Politicization and Mediatization of the ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Poland.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies16(1–2): 76–96. 10.1080/15562948.2017.1317897
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1317897 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2020 “Discursive Shifts and the Normalisation of Racism: Imaginaries of Immigration, Moral Panics and the Discourse of Contemporary Right-Wing Populism.” Social Semiotics30 (4): 503–527. 10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Landau, Mark J., Daniel Sullivan, and Jeff Greenberg
    2009 “Evidence that Self-Relevant Motives and Metaphoric Framing Interact to Influence Political and Social Attitudes.” Psychological Science20 (11): 1421–1426. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02462.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02462.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Luke, Allan
    2002 “Beyond Science and Ideology Critique: Developments in Critical Discourse Analysis.” Annual review of Applied Linguistics22(1): 96–110. 10.1017/S0267190502000053
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mason, Winter and Siddharth Suri
    2012 “Conducting Behavioural Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavioural Research Methods44: 1–23. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0124‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Musolff, Andreas
    2004Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ofcom [Google Scholar]
  47. Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis
    2010 “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Judgement and Decision Making5: 411–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Peer, Eyal, Laura Brandimarte, Sonam Samat, and Alessandro Acquisti
    2017 “Beyond the Turk: Alternative Platforms for Crowdsourcing Behavioral Research.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology70: 153–163. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr, and Gerard J. Steen
    2015 “How Viruses and Beasts Affect our Opinions (or Not): The Role of Extendedness in Metaphorical Framing.” Metaphor and the Social World5(2): 245–263. 10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
  50. Robins, Shani and Richard E. Mayer
    2000 “The Metaphor Framing Effect: Metaphorical Reasoning about Text-Based Dilemmas.” Discourse Processes30 (1): 57–86. 10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03 [Google Scholar]
  51. Santa Ana, Otto
    1999 “‘Like an Animal I was Treated’: Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in US Public Discourse.” Discourse & Society10(2): 191–224. 10.1177/0957926599010002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002004 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Semino, Elena
    2008Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Shariatmadari, David
    2015 “Swarms, Floods and Marauders: The Toxic Metaphors of the Migration Debate.” Guardian, August10 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/10/migration-debate-metaphors-swarms-floods-marauders-migrants
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Steen, Gerard J.
    2008 “The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol23: 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010 “When is Metaphor Deliberate?” InSelected Papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival, edited byNils-Lennart Johannesson, Christina Alm-Arvius, and David C. Minugh, 43–63. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Steen, Gerard J., W. Gudrun Reijnierse, and Christian Burgers
    2014 “When Do Natural Language Metaphors Influence Reasoning? A Follow-up Study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013).” PLoS ONE9(12): e113536. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113536 [Google Scholar]
  58. Subtirelu, Nicholas C. and Shakthidhar R. Gopavaram
    2016 “Crowdsourcing Critical Discourse Analysis: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to Explore Readers’ Uptake of Comments about Language on RateMyProfessors.com.” CADAAD8 (1): 38–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Thibodeau, Paul H.
    2016 “Extended Metaphors are the Home Runs of Persuasion: Don’t Fumble the Phrase.” Metaphor and Symbol31 (2): 53–72. 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756 [Google Scholar]
  60. Thibodeau, Paul H. and Lera Boroditsky
    2011 “Metaphors We Think with: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning.” PLoS ONE6(2): e16782. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013 “Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning.” PLoS ONE8(1): e52961. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  62. Thibodeau, Paul H. and Lera Borodistky
    2015 “Measuring Effects of Metaphor in a Dynamic Opinion Landscape.” PLoS ONE10(7): e0133939. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0133939
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133939 [Google Scholar]
  63. Utych, Stephen M.
    2018 “How Dehumanization Influences Attitudes toward Immigrants.” Political Research Quarterly7(2): 440–452. 10.1177/1065912917744897
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744897 [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Widdowson, Henry G.
    2004Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758427
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
  66. Woods, Andy T., Carlos Velasco, Carmel A. Levitan, Xiaoang Wan, and Charles Spence
    2015 “Conducting Perception Research over the Internet: A Tutorial Review.” Peer J3 e1058. 10.7717/peerj.1058
    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1058 [Google Scholar]
  67. YouGov [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