Cover not available

In:At the Crossroads of Historical and Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Anna Rogos-Hebda and Heli Tissari
[Figurative Thought and Language 21] 2026
► pp. 244–263

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

Contextual use of “journey” may communicate specific experience and concerns of a social group

 | Independent researcher
Published online: 29 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.21.11dil
Abstract
This study is an applied consideration of the importance of combining cognitive and historical approaches in linguistics. The noun journey is identified as representing an experience that is universal across time and cultures, and as often used metaphorically. In the study use of journey is compared in six social media settings relating to different health concerns. It is found that use of journey is different in each context, in terms of (i) its prevalence, including diachronic change; and (ii) the noun phrase in which it is most typically used, which in each case is intrinsically metaphoric. In each case also journey is found to have a predictable psychological characterisation, including that across all data contexts posts containing journey have a more positive valence than other posts. It is concluded that journey as a metaphor may support communication of the particular experience, and related ethos and concerns, of a social group, and that the contrasting wider and historic meaning of journey, including figurative use, is an important aspect of such insights; in addition, the amenability of journey to such local adaptations may be an undocumented aspect of its history. While such local adaptations may be categorised as variation, they may also contribute to historic change.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The noun journey
  • 2.Data
    • 2.1Ethical considerations
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Natural language processing
      • 3.1.1Sense2vec
    • 3.2Linear least squares regression analysis
    • 3.3Psychologically significant linguistic variables
      • 3.3.1Sentiment analysis
      • 3.3.2Personal pronouns
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Use of journey on Reddit in general, including over time
    • 4.2Occurrence of journey on each subreddit, and over time
    • 4.3Relationship between journey and linguistic variables having a psychological relevance
    • 4.4How is journey used on each subreddit?
    • 4.5How distinctive is the language surrounding journey
  • 5.Discussion
  • References
References (42)
References
Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BAAL. (2021). Recommendations on good practice in Applied Linguistics. 4th Edition. [URL]
Baumgartner, J. (2022). Pushshift.io. Pushshift.Io. [URL]
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(6), 641–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
cardiffnlp. (2022). Cardiffnlp/twitter-roberta-base-sentiment-latest · Hugging Face. [URL]
Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5(3), 271–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9. [URL].
Fabiszak, M., & Hebda, A. (2010). Cognitive historical approaches to emotions: Pride. In Cognitive historical approaches to emotions: Pride (pp. 261–297). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Prospects for the past: Perspectives for cognitive diachronic semantics. In Prospects for the past: Perspectives for cognitive diachronic semantics (pp. 333–356). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. (pp. 153-179). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [University of California, Berkeley]. [URL]
Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindholm, T., & Sikström, S. (2014). Selection bias in choice of words: Evaluations of “I” and “we” differ between contexts, but “they” are always worse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(1), 49–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hommerberg, C., Gustafsson, A. W., & Sandgren, A. (2020). Battle, journey, imprisonment and burden: Patterns of metaphor use in blogs about living with advanced cancer. BMC Palliative Care, 19(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2021). spaCy · Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python. spaCy. [URL]
Hugging Face. (2022). Hugging Face — The AI community building the future. [URL]
Kövecses, Z. (2018). Metaphor universals in literature. Antares: Letras e Humanidades, 10(20), 154–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master Metaphor List. [URL]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, M. J. (2017). Conceptual metaphor in social psychology: The poetics of everyday life (1st Edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loria, S. (2022). TextBlob: Simplified Text Processing — TextBlob 0.16.0 documentation. [URL]
Moscatelli, S., & Rubini, M. (2021). Is group-directed praise always welcome? Reactions to ingroup and outgroup praise depend on linguistic abstraction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(4), 439–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2010). Metaphor in discourse history. In M. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 70–90). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. (2022). [URL]
Pennebaker, J., Boyd, R., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prandi, M. (2012). A plea for living metaphors: Conflictual metaphors and metaphorical swarms. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 148–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In The SAGE Handbook of Identities (pp. 45–62). SAGE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlueter, E., Schmidt, P., & Wagner, U. (2008). Disentangling the causal relations of perceived group threat and outgroup derogation: Cross-national evidence from German and Russian panel surveys. European Sociological Review, 24(5), 567–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SciPy. (2022). scipy.stats.linregress — SciPy v1.9.3 Manual. [URL]
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S., & Rayson, P. (2017). Metaphor, cancer and the end of life: A corpus-based study (1st ed.). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestClassifier. (2025). Scikit-Learn. [URL]
spaCy. (2023). Sense2vec. Sense2vec. [URL]
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. xv, 474). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tissari, H. (2005). Conceptualizing shame: Investigating uses of the English word shame, 1418–1991. Selected Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trask, A., Michalak, P., & Liu, J. (2015). sense2vec — A fast and accurate method for word sense disambiguation in neural word embeddings (No. arXiv:1511.06388). arXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trim, R. (2010). Conceptual networking theory in metaphor evolution: Diachronic variation in models of love. In M. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 223–260). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention Is All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762 [Cs]. [URL]
Winters, M. (2010). Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In M. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3–28). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winters, M. E., Tissari, H., & Allan, K. (2010). Historical cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2011). Elasticity of vague language. 8(4), 571–599. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue