1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 15, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper uses cognitive discourse analysis to investigate whether differing cognitive structures and mental representations are reflected in sides of pipeline debates. Quotations were extracted from a web corpus to assign statements to identifiable actors in two pipeline protests: the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP) and Coastal GasLink Pipeline (CGP). Statements were then grouped according to the stance of the speakers. Aspects of cognitive orientation, depth, and constructiveness were compared between the groups. Results demonstrate methods and approaches that could be adapted to place-based conflicts between communities and industries. The analysis obtains insights which could advance linguistic scholarship related to natural resources and the environment as well as enhance conceptual clarity and mutual understanding in the context of specific projects or debates.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
2025-02-10
2025-11-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, J.
    (2021) Infrastructural Unrest. Proceedings of Politics of the Machines, 122–131. 10.14236/ewic/POM2021.16
     https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/POM2021.16 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anchimbe, E. A.
    (2018) Postcolonial pragmatics: A theoretical framework for postcolonial multilingual societies. InE. A. Anchimbe (Eds.), Offers and offer refusals: A postcolonial pragmatics perspective on world Englishes (pp.29–62). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.298.c2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.298.c2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baudemann, K.
    (2016) Towards a Postcolonial Pragmatics of Anglophone North American Indigenous Literatures: Linguistic Liberation of the Reader as a Decolonizing Act. InC. Schubert & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Pragmatic perspectives on postcolonial discourse: Linguistics and literature (pp.171–93). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Billig, M., & Tajfel, H.
    (1973, jan). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 (1), 27–52. Retrieved from10.1002/ejsp.2420030103
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103 [Google Scholar]
  5. Black Elk, L., & Marie Baker, J.
    (2020) From traplines to pipelines: Oil sands and the pollution of berries and sacred lands from northern Alberta to North Dakota. InN. J. Turner (Ed.), Plants, people, and places: The roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in Indigenous Peoples’ land rights in Canada and beyond (pp.173–187). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bobby Banerjee, S., Maher, R., & Krämer, R.
    (2021) Resistance is fertile: Toward a political ecology of translocal resistance. Organization, 0 (0), 1–24. 10.1177/1350508421995742
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508421995742 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosworth, K.
    (2020) The people know best: Situating the counterexpertise of populist pipeline opposition movements. InJ. McCarthy (Ed.), Environmental governance in a populist/authoritarian era (p.12). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429327032‑25
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429327032-25 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cialone, C., Tenbrink, T., & Spiers, H. J.
    (2018) Sculptors, Architects, and Painters Conceive of Depicted Spaces Differently. Cognitive Science, 42 (2), 524–553. 10.1111/cogs.12510
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12510 [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M.
    (2010) Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Deem, A.
    (2019) Mediated Intersections of Environmental and Decolonial Politics in the No Dakota Access Pipeline Movement. Theory, Culture and Society, 36 (5), 113–131. 10.1177/0263276418807002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418807002 [Google Scholar]
  12. EJatlas
    EJatlas (2022) The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice. Retrieved2022-03-01, fromwww.ejatlas.org
  13. Entman, R. M.
    (1993, dec). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Estes, N.
    (2017) Fighting for our lives: NoDAPL in Historical Context. Wicazo Sa Review, 32 (2), 115–122. 10.5749/wicazosareview.32.2.0115
     https://doi.org/10.5749/wicazosareview.32.2.0115 [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, V.
    (2009) Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.27–55). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.06eva
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.06eva [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, B.
    (2010) Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. InG. Kaltenboeck, S. Schneider, & W. Mihatsch (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp.15–34). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1163/9789004253247_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frayne, C.
    (2022) Corpus-based analysis of genetically modified seed discourse. Discourse & Society, 33(2), 175–192. 10.1177/09579265211023234
     https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265211023234 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garrido, J.
    (2011) Motion metaphors in discourse construction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 107–129. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.06gar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.06gar [Google Scholar]
  19. Goeckner, R., Daley, S. M., Gunville, J., & Daley, C. M.
    (2020) Cheyenne River Sioux Traditions and Resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Religion and Society, 11 (1), 75–91. 10.3167/arrs.2020.110106
     https://doi.org/10.3167/arrs.2020.110106 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodson, D. J., van Riper, C. J., Andrade, R., Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., & Hauber, M. E.
    (2022) Perceived inclusivity and trust in protected area management decisions among stakeholders in Alaska. People and Nature, 4 (3), 758–772. 10.1002/pan3.10312
     https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10312 [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp.41–58). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grossman, Z.
    (2017) Fossil Fuel Shipping and Blocking: Northern Plains and Pacific Northwest. Unlikely alliances: Native nations and white communities join to defend rural lands (pp.170–204). University of Washington Press. 10.1515/9780295741536‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780295741536-014 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haslam, A., Oakes, P., Turner, J., & McGarty, C.
    (1996) Social identity, self-categorization, and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition. InR. Sorrentino & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp.182–222). Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. King, F.
    (2021) Voices of Indigenous Dallas-Fort Worth from Relocation to the Dakota Access Pipeline Controversy. Family and Community History, 24 (2), 147–174. 10.1080/14631180.2021.1943198
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14631180.2021.1943198 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kojola, E.
    (2019) Bringing Back the Mines and a Way of Life: Populism and the Politics of Extraction. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109 (2), 371–381. 10.1080/24694452.2018.1506695
     https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1506695 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, G.
    (1973) Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 458–508. 10.1007/BF00262952
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University Of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Landén, A. S., & Fotaki, M.
    (2018) Gender and struggles for equality in mining resistance movements: Performing critique against neoliberal capitalism in Sweden and Greece. Social Inclusion, 6 (4), 25–35. 10.17645/si.v6i4.1548
     https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i4.1548 [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R. W.
    (1986) An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science, 10 (1), 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levisen, C., & Waters, S.
    (2017) How words do things with people. InC. Levisen & S. Waters (Eds.), Cultural keywords in discourse (pp.1–23). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.277.01lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.277.01lev [Google Scholar]
  31. López, E.
    (2019) Race, culture, and resistance at standing rock: An analysis of racialized dispossession and indigenous resistance. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 18 (1–2), 113–133. 10.1163/15691497‑12341508
     https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341508 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacDonald, M. N., & Hunter, D.
    (2019) The Discourse of Security: Language, Illiberalism and Governmentality. Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97193‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97193-3 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malan, G.
    (2016) Myth as metaphor. HTS Teologiese Studies, 72 (4). Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org.algonquin.idm.oclc.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3260. 10.4102/hts.v72i4.3260
     https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3260 [Google Scholar]
  34. Marks, M. P.
    (2019) The desire for shelter Nation- and state-building and the metaphorical discourse of fragile and collapsed states. InM.-M. Stanojević & L. Šarić (Eds.), Metaphor, nation and discourse (pp.35–57). John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.82.02mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.82.02mar [Google Scholar]
  35. McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R.
    (Eds.) (2002) Social, cultural and cognitive factors in stereotype formation. Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. (pp.1–15). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489877.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.002 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mengden, W. H.
    (2017) Indigenous people, human rights, and consultation: the Dakota Access Pipeline. American Indian Law Review, 411.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
    (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav Brain Sci, 34(2), 57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller, J.
    (2008) Otherness. SAGE. 10.4135/9781412963909.n304
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n304 [Google Scholar]
  39. Musolff, A.
    (2016) Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. Bloomsbury Academy.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nerlich, B.
    (2010) Breakthroughs and disasters: The politics and ethics of metaphor use in the media. InH.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical studies (pp.63–88). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216035.63
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.63 [Google Scholar]
  41. Neuliep, J. W.
    (2017) Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Oster, L.
    (2019) Field Notes from Standing Rock. CrossCurrents, 69 (2), 128–136. 10.1111/cros.12365
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cros.12365 [Google Scholar]
  43. Petrilli, S.
    (2006) Meaning, metaphor, and interpretation: Modeling new worlds, Semiotica, 2006 (161), 75–118. 10.1515/SEM.2006.058
     https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2006.058 [Google Scholar]
  44. Powell, C.
    (2020) Resisting colonial jurisdiction: Defending Wet’suwet’en territory from fossil capital. Socialist Lawyer, 841, 36–40. 10.13169/socialistlawyer.84.0036
     https://doi.org/10.13169/socialistlawyer.84.0036 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pulitano, E.
    (2003) Toward a Native American Critical Theory. University of Nebraska Press. 10.5250/9781496245311
     https://doi.org/10.5250/9781496245311 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2011) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stanojević, M.-M., & Šarić, L.
    (2019) Metaphors in the discursive construction of nations. InM.-M. Stanojević & L. Šarić (Eds.), Metaphor, nation and discourse (pp.1–32). John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.82.01sta
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.82.01sta [Google Scholar]
  48. Stern, W. E.
    (2018, January17). “Black snakes” or essential infrastructure: Dakota Access Pipeline, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal government’s tribal consultation obligations, and why this matters. Modrall Sperling Law Firm. https://www.modrall.com/2018/01/17/black-snakes-essential-infrastructure-dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux-tribe-v-u-s-army-corps-engineers-federal-governments-tribal-consultation-obligations-m/
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tajfel, H.
    (2001) Social stereotypes and social groups. InM. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp.132–145). Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Talmy, L.
    (2012) Attention phenomena. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.256–289). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0011 [Google Scholar]
  51. Temper, L., Avila, S., Del Bene, D., Gobby, J., Kosoy, N., Le Billon, P., Martinez-Alier, J., Perkins, P., Roy, B., Scheidel, A., & Walter, M.
    (2020) Movements shaping climate futures: A systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy projects. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (12). 10.1088/1748‑9326/abc197
     https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc197 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tenbrink, T.
    (2020) Cognitive Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108525176
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525176 [Google Scholar]
  53. Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
    (2002) The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. van Dijk, T. A.
    (1993) Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Society, 4 (2), 249–283. 10.1177/0957926593004002006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2014) Discourse-cognition-society. InC. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary studies in critical discourse analysis (pp.121–146). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781472593634.ch‑005
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593634.ch-005 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2015) Critical Discourse Studies: a Sociocognitive Approach. InR. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp.63–85). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Vlasyan, G. R.
    (2019) Linguistic Hedging In Interpersonal Communication. InZ. Marina Viktorovna (Eds.), Journalistic Text in a New Technological Environment: Achievements and Problems (pp.617–623). Future Academy. 10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.02.72
     https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.02.72 [Google Scholar]
  58. Volkmann, L.
    (2016) Said/not Said: Discursive and Linguistic Strategies of Othering in Colonial, Post-Colonial and Post-Ethnic Literature. InC. Schubert & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Pragmatic perspectives on postcolonial discourse: Linguistics and literature (pp.220–245). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Waldron, I.
    (2022) Pipelines and Protests: Legacies of Struggle and Resistance in the Fight Against Environmental Racism in Canada. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 28 (2), 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zaremberg, G., & Wong, M. T.
    (2018) Participation on the edge: Prior consultation and extractivism in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10 (3), 29–58. 10.1177/1866802X1801000302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X1801000302 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
Loading
Cognitive analysis of gas pipeline discourse
Metaphor and the Social World 15, 55 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23019.fra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Coastal GasLink Pipeline; cognitive discourse analysis; cognitive linguistics; Dakota Access Pipeline; ecolinguistics; energy infrastructure; environmental discourse; gas pipelines; postcolonial pragmatics

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