Metaphor and the Social World - Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019

Abstract

This paper explores the way that teachers use metaphors to think and talk about grammar and what this means for classroom practice. It does so by employing conceptual metaphor theory to analyse teachers’ metalinguistic discourse, focusing particularly on construals of grammar and grammar teaching. Based on a series of interviews with 24 UK-based secondary school English teachers, the findings suggest that teachers make extensive use of metaphor, often mapping the abstract domain of grammar with concrete domains such as construction material and rulebook. The discipline of English studies itself was often construed as a series of separate parts, with grammar occupying a physical space that was often seen as disconnected to other aspects of the curriculum. The findings are discussed in relation to sociocultural contexts, including the current climate of English teaching in the UK, educational policy discourse, public and professional views on language, and the place of grammar on the curriculum.

Abstract

This article offers a model of translation which frames semantic relations between source- and target-text elements in terms of metonymy, and translation in terms of metonymic processing. Translators/interpreters constantly use approximations rather than exact one-to-one correspondences in their work, as meaning making is by nature partial and built-in matches between language systems do not exist. Approximation is identified as a recurrent theme in Translation Studies, while Metonymy Studies is seen as providing a toolkit for describing in detail the approximate semantic relations between source- and target-text elements. Models from Metonymy Studies are applied to two translation case studies and a translation revision case study. An original typology of metonymic relations is proposed based on whether or not source and target are encoded linguistically as vehicle and topic respectively. It is concluded that the semantic relations between source- and target-text elements in translation are distinctive in two respects: (1) they are characterized by facetization and zone activation rather than metonymization; (2) they are examples of Topic metonymy (both source and target concepts are encoded) and Code-switching metonymy (the source and target concepts are encoded in different languages).

Abstract

Across languages, the head and sexualized body parts (i.e., vagina, breasts, penis, testicles) are conceptualized in a number of ways, for example as fruits and vegetables: heads are conceptualized as cabbages, vaginas as figs, breasts as melons, penises as carrots, and testicles as olives, to only name a few. The present study draws on the theories of conceptual metaphor and metonymy by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) to analyze the conceptualizations of the five body parts as fruits and vegetables in English, Spanish and French. For this purpose, a slang dictionary-based database of 184 conceptualizations was compiled. Research on the head and sexualized body parts is particularly interesting as they represent the core of intellect and sexuality respectively, which makes them prone to being conceptualized in a variety of expressive and euphemistic ways. The results of the present study show that female body parts are primarily conceptualized as sweet fruits, while the penis as well as the head are mostly understood of as savory vegetables. This finding suggests a case of gender stereotyping, whereby sweet-natured women are denied intelligence as the head is stereotypically seen as a male body part (i.e., as a savory vegetable).

Abstract

The study investigates the usage of metaphorical structures in the German press discourse on multi-resistant pathogens in the clinical context by applying methods of qualitative discourse analysis to a corpus of 900 newspaper and magazine articles published between 1995–2015. The study shows that metaphors are of key importance for the processes of knowledge transfer, emotion production and persuasion. Metaphors are assigned to one of three general principles (mechanising explanation patterns, gain and loss of control, agentivity and personification) and to seven dominant source domains which structure the discourse through frequent argumentation structures: war, economy, space, machines, water, police and crime, sports and games. The occurrence of metaphor is – as previous research in other areas has shown – universal to all examined press texts; variation is limited to the thematic focus of individual argumentation structures between the different texts.

Abstract

As part of an on-going project to apply metaphor analysis to understanding the cultural polarization that has recently obstructed discourse about political and cultural issues in both the United States and Europe, this essay examines the lexical, grammatical, and story metaphors in a recent editorial column, by conservative columnist Ross Douthat, that also focuses on this topic. In a key section of the essay, Douthat uses a blend of complex grammatical and lexical metaphors to highlight the contrast between the traditional American identity narrative of settlement and conquest and a recently emerged liberal counter-narrative, which Douthat epitomizes by quoting former President Obama’s repeated insistence that “That’s not who we are.” Douthat’s argument is contextualized by the reproduction of an image with the title “Engraving of a massacre of Indian women and children in Idaho by 19th century white settlers,” which strengthens the contrasts and implied ironies embedded in his complex combination of grammatical and lexical metaphors. These relationships are brought into sharp focus through the metaphor-led analysis of the text and its interaction with the image, demonstrating the value of this approach to discourse analysis.

Abstract

This paper analyzes three sources of discourse on immigration in the United States: congressional debates from the 1920s representing two polarized sides, a speech by President Obama, and a speech by President Trump. The goal of this analysis was to explore how the conceptual metaphors used in discussing immigration may have changed over the past century, in order to gain insight into the current polarization surrounding this topic. Results reveal striking similarities between Trump’s rhetoric and metaphorical framing and the 1920s anti-immigration side’s arguments, in that both situate the United States as a victim of immigration. In contrast, although there are fewer similarities between Obama’s metaphors and metaphorical frames and those used by earlier supporters of immigration, the claim that immigrants are a benefit to the United States remains constant.

This article reviews Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca: Idiom and Metaphor978-1-5015-1688-7

This article reviews Métaphores de l’Austérité et Austérité des Métaphores978-2-343-13801-5

This article reviews The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language97811387753679781315672953