1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Frame exploitation at its worst
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Although essential to science and health communication, metaphors can backfire. At this point, any attempt on the part of the speaker to clarify his/her intentions would ultimately prove futile because the mental situation models of speakers and their recipients may not be the same. A debate over the meaning of a metaphor, the variations in its interpretation, or constant negotiation between the interactants poses a substantial challenge to intention-based theories of implicature. A corpus analysis of the “kofta” analogy used by a senior Egyptian army doctor during a February 2014 televised news conference to announce cures for AIDS and hepatitis C and the ensuing impasse over its appropriateness shows that a metaphor designed to publicly communicate science, to confront and shatter the stereotypical image of scientists as dull and stilted people, to persuade citizens to accept the claims as fact, or to hide the speaker’s own scientific ignorance may be sarcastically repeated, extended, and elaborated (“overexploited”) by the target audience (“overdone metaphors”). The doctor or his use of the metaphor of “I give [the virus] back as a kebab skewer for the patient to feed on” has been condemned as “too lower class”. Various forms of metaphor denial and resistance are examined. The article, analyzing thousands of YouTube comments on the news conference video, provides valuable insights for interpreting tropes and has important implications both for science and health communicators and socio-cognitive pragmaticists.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
2024-09-17
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00203.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. Abd-El-Jawad, H. R.
    (1987) Cross-dialectal variation in Arabic: Competing prestigious forms. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404500012446
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012446 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdel-Raheem, A.
    (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. Al-Misri, I.
    (1963) TaHariir ʿit-TaHabiir (H. M. Sharaf, Ed.). Al-Majlis al-Aʿlā lil-Shuʾūn alIslāmiyyah.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, L.
    (2005, July). AntConc: design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. InIPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference (pp.–). IEEE. 10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494244
     https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494244 [Google Scholar]
  5. Attardo, S.
    (2015) Humorous metaphors. InG. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110346343‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bateman, J. A.
    (2022) Multimodality, where next?–Some meta-methodological considerations. Multimodality & Society, (), –. 10.1177/26349795211073043
     https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795211073043 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brandt, L.
    (2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke, K.
    (1969) A grammar of motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520341715
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520341715 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clevenger, T., & Edwards, R.
    (1988) Semantic distance as a predictor of metaphor selection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, , –. 10.1007/BF01686356
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01686356 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulson, S.
    (2005) Sarcasm and the space structuring model. InS. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp.–). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Crosson, B., Radonovich, K., Sadek, J. R., Gökçay, D., Bauer, R. M., Fischler, I. S., Cato, M. A., Maron, L., Auerbach, E. J., Browd, S. R., & Briggs, R. W.
    (1999) Left-hemisphere processing of emotional connotation during word generation. NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, (), –. 10.1097/00001756‑199908200‑00003
     https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199908200-00003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Crystal, D.
    (1987) Concepts of language development: A realistic perspective. InW. Yule, & M. Butter (Eds.), Language development and disorders (pp.–). London: Mac Keith Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Druckman, J. N.
    (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, , –. 10.1023/A:1015006907312
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015006907312 [Google Scholar]
  14. Elder, C., & Haugh, M.
    (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]
  15. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fetzer, A.
    (2013) The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse. InA. Fetzer (Ed.), The pragmatics of political discourse: Explorations across cultures (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.01fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.01fet [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, R. W., & Siman, J.
    (2021) How we resist metaphors. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2021.18
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.18 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gingell, J.
    (2015, August14). Economics jargon promotes a deficit in understanding. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/aug/14/economics-jargon-promotes-a-deficit-in-understanding
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P.
    (2010) Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. InL. R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219302.225
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219302.225 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, H. P.
    (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grossman, R.
    (2014, October10). Science communication: could you explain it to your granny?The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/oct/10/science-communicators-quantum-physics-granny
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hanks, P.
    (2013) Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, M.
    (2008) Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the “uncovered meat” sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/IP.2008.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110240078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hülzer-Vogt, H.
    (1991) Facets of verbal conflicts in communication. InS. Stati, E. Weigand, & F. Hundsnurscher (Eds.), Dialoganalyse III, Teil 1: Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung, Bologna 1990 (pp.–). Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783111678504‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678504-012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Katz, A. N.
    (2023) Pictorial irony and sarcasm. InR. W. Gibbs & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of irony and thought (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108974004.028
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974004.028 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kilgarriff, A., P. Rychlý, P. Smrž, & D. Tugwell
    (2004) The Sketch Engine. InWilliams, G. & S. Vessier (Eds.). Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX (pp.–). Lorient: Université De Bretagne Sud..
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kövecses, Z.
    (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, , –. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langton, R.
    (1993) Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, (), –. https://web.mit.edu/langton/www/pubs/SpeechActs.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Leech, G. N.
    (2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2000) Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lockyer, S., & Myers, L.
    (2011) “It’s about expecting the unexpected”: Live stand-up comedy from the audiences’ perspective. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lozano-Palacios, I., & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
    (2022) Modeling irony. A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.12 [Google Scholar]
  41. Matthews, J. K., Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J.
    (2006) The roles of politeness and humor in the asymmetry of affect in verbal irony. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2 [Google Scholar]
  42. Metz, C.
    (1980) Connotation reconsidered. Discourse, , –. www.jstor.org/stable/41389051
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Musolff, A.
    (2017) Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  44. (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]
  45. Nashef, H. A. M.
    (2013) أهلا, hello and bonjour: a postcolonial analysis of Arab media’s use of code switching and mixing and its ramification on the identity of the self in the Arab world, International Journal of Multilingualism, (), –. 10.1080/14790718.2013.783582
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2013.783582 [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Brien, E.
    (2019) Enjoy it again: Repeat experiences are less repetitive than people think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), . 10.1037/pspa0000147
     https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000147 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (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]
  48. Reagle, J. M.
    (2015) Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Massachusetts: Mit Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ross, R. N.
    (1975) Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P.
    (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, (), –. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2002.tb00813.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Thomas, J.
    (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Dijk, T.
    (1992) Denying racism: Elite discourse and racism. Discourse and Society, (), –. 10.1177/0957926592003001005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003001005 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2024) Social movement discourse: An introduction. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Weigand, E.
    (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]
  56. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (1992) On verbal irony. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
  57. (2012) Explaining irony. InD. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  58. Yus, F.
    (2016) Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
Loading
Frame exploitation at its worst
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: metaphors in medicine ; frame denial and resistance ; diverging interpretations of metaphor ; frame flouting and overexploitation ; science communication ; sarcastic extensions and elaborations ; humor, social media and corpus tools

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