1887
image of The COVID-19 pandemic and changing meanings of flatten the curve
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper conducts a comparative analysis of the meanings of the phrase before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from two corpora, the iWeb Corpus and the Coronavirus Corpus, it focuses on semantic frames ( ) and frame metonymy ( ). The investigation reveals that the construal of the phrase after the outbreak of COVID-19 requires the invocation of both and frames; that is, without the frame, the phrase would remain in the domain of statistics and refer to a change in a graph. The data are sorted into four semantic categories based on the context in which they appear (epidemiological/non-epidemiological) and on the effect they pursue regarding the flattening-the-curve scenario (rigorous/non-rigorous). The phrase’s polysemy is explained by the metonymy. The flatter curve, as a salient part of a scenario, serves to refer to one of the scenario’s effects. The analysis also observes a correlation between the real-world experience of the pandemic and the actual frequency of in that the ratio of each semantic category reflects the contemporaneous real-world significance of reducing the rate of increase of new infections.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00158.kan
2023-09-22
2024-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asif, M., Zhiyong, D., Iram, A., & Nisar, M.
    (2021) Linguistic analysis of neologism related to coronavirus. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, (), . 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100201
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100201 [Google Scholar]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2007) Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance: Community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the United States – Centers early, targeted, layered use of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Retrieved fromwww.pandemicflu.gov/plan/community/community_mitigation (Accessed onMarch 14 2022).
  3. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2021) Metaphors of coronavirus: Invisible enemy or zombie apocalypse?Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑85106‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85106-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dancygier, B.
    (2009) Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.13dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.13dan [Google Scholar]
  6. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  7. (Eds.) (2014) Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1997) Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006[1982]) Frame semantics. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373 [Google Scholar]
  12. Jenson, H. B.
    (2020) How did ‘flatten the curve’ become ‘flatten the economy?’: A perspective from the United States of America. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, , . 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102165
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102165 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2006[1993]) Chapter 6: Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.185
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.185 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E.
    (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lei, S., Yang, R., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2021) Emergent neologism: A study of an emerging meaning with competing forms based on the first six months of COVID-19. Lingua, , . 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103095
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103095 [Google Scholar]
  19. Páez, D., & Pérez, J. A.
    (2020) Social representations of COVID-19. International Journal of Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1080/02134748.2020.1783852
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1783852 [Google Scholar]
  20. Pannain, R., & di Pace, L.
    (2022) Metonymy and the polysemy of Covid in Italian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00109.pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00109.pan [Google Scholar]
  21. Paradis, C.
    (2011) Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a consensus view (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.04par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.04par [Google Scholar]
  22. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  24. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Diez Velasco, O. J.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ziem, A.
    (2014) Frames of understanding in text and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.48 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00158.kan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00158.kan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: polysemy ; semantic extension ; frame metonymy ; COVID-19 ; semantic frames ; flatten the curve
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