Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 7:2 (2017) ► pp.190–212

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

Language is a ‘Beautiful Creature’, not an ‘Old Fridge’

Direct metaphors as corrective framing devices

 | University of Belgrade
Published online: 20 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.7.2.02bog
Abstract
Direct metaphor has been widely studied from the cognitive perspective, but its functions in the communicative dimension (Steen, G. (2011). From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik. de, 211, 83–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) remain less well understood. This study investigates direct metaphor as a tool of metaphorical framing (Ottati, V. C., Renstrom, R. A., & Price, E. (2014). The metaphorical framing model: Political communication and public opinion. In M. Landau, M. Robinson, & B. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 179–202). Washington, DC: APA Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Ritchie, L. D., & Cameron, L. (2014). Open hearts or smoke and mirrors: Metaphorical framing and frame conflicts in a public meeting. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(3), 204–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) in discourse, by examining a corpus of British newspaper texts on the topic of language and language change. The analysis of direct metaphors is sufficient to point to major ideologies of language and communication in the observed media context, which echo broader anxieties over social change, social organization and control. Most notably, unlike the meanings stressed in existing studies, the vast majority of direct metaphors are here found to serve the specific role of relational argumentation. This function is achieved through a kind of ‘corrective framing’, which explicitly juxtaposes two conflicting representations through an ‘A is B and not C’ type of metaphor. The findings are discussed with respect to deliberateness, metaphorical framing and rhetorical goals in discourse. It is hypothesized that corrective framing is among the major functions of direct metaphor in public discourse, which can influence public opinion in ways different from other metaphorically created representations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Context: Metalinguistic discussions in public discourse
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequency of direct metaphors of language
    • 4.2Discourse functions of direct metaphors
      • 4.2.1Explanations and relational argumentation
      • 4.2.2‘A is B and not C’: Direct metaphors and corrective frames
  • 5.Implications: Corrective framing in action
  • 6.Are the metaphors used deliberate?
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin, TX: Austin University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2015). Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures. Metaphorik.de, 201, 39–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 261, 611–639. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogetić, K. (2016). Metalinguistic comments in teenage personal blogs: Bringing youth voices to studies of youth, language and technology. Text & Talk, 36(3), 245–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, B. (2015). The reclassification of political frames: A metaphorical perspective. MA Thesis, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2012). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The one, the many, and the Other: Representing multi-and mono-lingualism in post-9/11 verbal hygiene. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 1(2), 59–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2012). Forensic deliberations on ‘purposeful metaphor’. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(1), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimitrova, D. V., & Strömbäck, J. (2005). Mission accomplished? Framing of the Iraq War in the elite newspapers in Sweden and the United States. Gazette, 67(5), 399–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gamson, W., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 181, 373–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2015). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 73–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 223–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M., Harding, J. R., & Tobin, V. (2004). On simile. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 123–135). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., and Galasinski, D. (Eds). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Low, G. D. (2010). Wot no similes? The curious absence of simile in university lectures. In G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan, & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in the real world (pp. 291–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macmillan Dictionary | Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus Online. (n.d.). Retrieved Jan. 2016 from [URL]
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ottati, V. C., Renstrom, R. A., & Price, E. (2014). The metaphorical framing model: Political communication and public opinion. In M. Landau, M. Robinson, & B. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 179–202). Washington, DC: APA Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2015). How viruses and beasts affect our opinions (or not): The role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2014). The “Belgian Tetris”: assessing the political impact of metaphors on citizens’ perception of, and attitude towards Belgian federalism. Metaphorik.de, 251, 7–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., & Cameron, L. (2014). Open hearts or smoke and mirrors: Metaphorical framing and frame conflicts in a public meeting. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(3), 204–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roncero, C., Kennedy, J. M., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Motoyama, H., Itoh, H., Kawabata, Y., & Abe, J. I. (2012). Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study. Brain and Language, 121(3), 254–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2008). When is metaphor deliberate. In G. Steen (Ed.), Selected papers from the Stockholm Metaphor Festival, (pp. 43–63). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2011). From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik. de, 211, 83–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 67–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P., McClelland, J. L., & Boroditsky, L. (2009). When a bad metaphor may not be a victimless crime: the role of metaphor in social policy. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 809–814). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS one 8(1): e52961. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(3), 667–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Fabricating youth: New-media discourse and the technologization of young people. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin (Eds.), Language in the media: Representations, identities, ideologies (pp. 213–233). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, X. (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1622–1636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Sewell, Andrew
2024. The discourse of ‘falling standards’ of English in Hong Kong. World Englishes 43:3 ► pp. 503 ff. DOI logo
Bogetic, Ksenija
2023. Language, gender and political symbolics: Insights from citizen digital discourses on gender‐sensitive language in Serbia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 27:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Bogetić, Ksenija
2019. Discursive metaphorical frames in newspaper texts on language change. Metaphor and the Social World 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cushing, Ian
2019. Resources not rulebooks. Metaphor and the Social World 9:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Slowing Metaphor Down [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 26], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue