Cover not available

In:The Language of Crisis: Metaphors, frames and discourses
Edited by Mimi Huang and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 87] 2020
► pp. 169–196

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 6
Metaphors for protest

The persuasive power of cross-domain mappings on demonstration posters against Stuttgart 21

 | Northumbria University Newcastle
Published online: 16 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.87.06kot
Abstract
Heated debates can inspire people to make use of creative linguistic means such as metaphor to express their point of view. In this chapter, I investigate the emotional appeal and persuasive power of metaphors on demonstration posters used by opponents of the railway modernization project Stuttgart 21 in Germany. In this context, metaphors are used both to construct and fuel the crisis. Protesters often draw on quite drastic conceptual mappings to aggravate existing tensions, demonize their ‘enemies,’ and express strong negative emotions like anger or fear. An examination of resistant discourses cannot only shed light on people’s attitudes towards elites, but also enhance our understanding of political protest in general.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Contextual background
    • 1.2Research questions
  • 2.Conceptual metaphor theory: Three adjustments
    • 2.1Terminological clarity
    • 2.2Labeling conceptual mappings
    • 2.3Context-dependent and discourse-pragmatic functions: Metaphor in cognitive linguistic approaches within critical discourse studies
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.The language of protest exemplified by Stuttgart 21 demonstration posters
    • 4.1The role of resistant discourses in formulating (counter-)ideologies
    • 4.2Constructing a political crisis: The target concept democracy
    • 4.3The political myth of corruptive politicians: Crime and immoral behavior
    • 4.4Expression of emotional attitude through violent metaphors
      • 4.4.1destruction, war and terror as source concepts
      • 4.4.2Religious source domains: hell and devil
      • 4.4.3Mental illness domains: delusion and insanity
      • 4.4.4darkness, doom and death as source domains
    • 4.5Demonization and personification through metaphor
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (66)
References
Alba-Juez, Laura, and Geoff Thompson. 2014. “The Many Faces and Phases of Evaluation.” In Evaluation in Context, ed. by Geoff Thompson, and Laura Alba-Juez, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, John. 2009. “Metaphor and Context: A Perspective from Artificial Intelligence.” In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 79–94. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosman, Jan. 1987. “Persuasive Effects of Political Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 2 (2): 97–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne, and Alice Deignan. 2006. “The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse.” Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 671–690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne, Robert Maslen, Zazie Todd, John Maule, Peter Stratton, and Neil Stanley. 2009. “The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis.” Metaphor and Symbol 24 (2): 63–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. 2008. “Metaphor and Talk.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 197–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Second Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 2011. “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 303–330. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2005. “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct.” In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Paul Chilton, 19–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1997. “The Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors.” Cognitive Science 21 (3): 247–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Rycker, Antoon, and Zuraidah Mohd Don (eds.). 2013. Discourse and Crisis: Critical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fainsilber, Lynn, and Andrew Ortony. 1987. “Metaphorical Uses of Language in the Expression of Emotions.” Metaphor and Symbol 2 (4): 239–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrari, Federica. 2007. “Metaphor at Work in the Analysis of Political Discourse: Investigating a ‘Preventive War’ Persuasion Strategy.” Discourse & Society 18 (5): 603–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flood, Christopher. 1996. Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geiss, Michael L. 1987. The Language of Politics. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2011. “Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Discourse Processes 48 (8): 529–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Do Pragmatic Signals Affect Conventional Metaphor Understanding? A Failed Test of Deliberate Metaphor Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Julia E. Lonergan. 2009. “Studying Metaphor in Discourse: Some Lessons, Challenges and New Data.” In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 251–261. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2008. “How Metaphors Create Categories – Quickly.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 67–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 1997. “Theories Are Buildings Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4): 267–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher, and Darren Kelsey (eds.). 2019. Discourses of Disorder: Riots, Strikes and Protests in the Media. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haubl, Rolf. 2007. “Gattungsschicksal Hass.” In Hass und Gewaltbereitschaft, ed. by Rolf Haubl, and Volker Caysa, 7–68. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 1996. “Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the ‘Winter of Discontent’.” Sociology 30 (2): 253–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jasper, James M. 1998. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 13 (3): 397–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalmoe, Nathan P. 2014. “Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence.” Political Communication 31: 545–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Jürgen. 2010. “Sprache und Macht.” APuZ. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 8: 7–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotzur, Gerrit. 2019. “Crying Children and Bleeding Pensioners against Rambo’s Troop: Perspectivisation in German Newspaper Reports on Stuttgart 21 Protests.” In Discourses of Disorder: Riots, Strikes and Protests in the Media, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Darren Kelsey, 75–92. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003 [1980]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1967. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. München: Hueber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew S. 2007. “What Is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor?” Language and Communication 27: 109–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mio, Jeffery Scott. 1997. “Metaphor and Politics.” Metaphor and Symbol 12 (2): 113–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molotch, Harvey, and Marilyn Lester. 1981. “News as Purposive Behaviour: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals.” In The Manufacture of News. Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media, ed. by Stanley Cohen, and Jock Young, 118–137. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2012. “The Study of Metaphor as Part of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Critical Discourse Studies 9 (3): 301–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pörksen, Bernhard. 2005. Die Konstruktion von Feindbildern. Zum Sprachgebrauch in neonazistischen Medien. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, David. 2003. “‘ARGUMENT IS WAR’ – Or Is It a Game of Chess? Multiple Meanings in the Analysis of Implicit Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2): 125–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robins, Shani, and Richard E. Mayer. 2000. „The Metaphor Framing Effect: Metaphorical Reasoning about Text-Based Dilemmas.“ Discourse Processes 30 (1): 57–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roth, Roland. 2011. Bürgermacht. Eine Streitschrift für mehr Partizipation. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika. 2013. Sprache und Emotion. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skirl, Helge, and Monika Schwarz-Friesel. 2013. Metapher. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skirl, Helge. 2009. Emergenz als Phänomen der Semantik am Beispiel des Metaphernverstehens. Emergente konzeptuelle Merkmale an der Schnittstelle von Semantik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Kompositummetaphern – semantische Innovation und textpragmatische Funktion.” Metaphorik.de 19: 23–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard. 2002. “The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor. A Meta-Analysis.” Human Communication Research 28 (3): 382–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2008. “The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol 23 (4): 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 26–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, Josef. 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tendahl, Markus, and Raymond W. Gibbs. 2008. “Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ulich, Dieter, and Philipp Mayring. 2003. Psychologie der Emotionen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Underhill, James W. 2011. Creating Worldviews: Metaphor, Ideology and Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vervaeke, John, and John M. Kennedy. 1996. “Metaphors in Language and Thought: Falsification and Multiple Meanings.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11: 273–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weber, Hannelore. 1994. Ärger: Psychologie einer alltäglichen Emotion. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wouters, Ruud. 2016. “Do Targets React and Third Parties Comment? Responsiveness and Scope Expansion in Television News Items of Protest.” Social Movement Studies 15 (6): 577–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue