Killing Metaphors. A Contrastive Analysi PDF

Killing Metaphors.
Analysing conceptual metaphors in current

political debates on war
Florian Dolberg,
Martin Schweinberger,
Svea Svoboda & Anja Wilken
Structure
1.
Introduction
2.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory
3.
CMT applied to politics

-
Obamas metaphors before and after his election
Use of metaphors: Obama vs. G.W. Bush, jr.
4.
CMT applied to political speeches on war

-
Lakoffs Metaphor and War (1991), Metaphor and War, Again (2003)
5.
Criticism of CMT
6.
Conclusion
Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010
Introduction
Politics and Aesthetics
-
Aesthetics original sense
study of apperception/ perception (Wahrnehmung)

e.g. Kants Critique of Pure Reason (1781), first chapter:
Transcendental aesthetics investigates the conditions of the
possibility of perception (cf. also Baumgarten 1735)
We will argue that metaphors are not mere figures of speech, i.e.
rhetoric devices employed to make a point, but linguistic and
cognitive means which not only enable understanding of complex
issues but also able to manipulate the perception of political events.
Introduction
Metaphor (classical view)
-
to carry over gr.: () meta between & () phero to bear, to

carry
A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is

transferred to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that
to which it is literally applicable (Oxford English Dictionary online;
10/5/2010).
(1) Mary is a monster.
(2) Time is flying.
(3) Jim is a pig.
Figurative versus literal meaning

Lakoff & Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By
-
Metaphors are ubiquitous in ordinary language and cannot be

dismissed as mere figure of rhetoric confined to certain literary
genres (cf. also Taylor 2002: 487).
Metaphors exhibit a high degree of systematicity and coherence
Metaphors are not simply a manner of speaking, but a mode of

thinking; we understand and we think metaphorically!
We understand abstract notions in terms of simple, concrete

concepts which have their basis in everyday experience.

CMT: basic mechanism
-
Metaphor involves a mapping relation between two domains
SOURCE domain
TARGET domain
conceptual structure
conceptual structure
Hypothesis
According to the structure of the SOURCE domain, some aspects of the
TARGET domain are highlighted while other aspects of the TARGET
domain are hidden.

SOURCE domain
= travelling
TARGET domain
= rational thought
Examples
traveller
corresponds to
thinker
departure
point
...
premises
arrival point
...
conclusion
We haven't reached a conclusion,

yet.
path
...
argument
Where are you going with this?
following a traveller
... following an argument
Where are you in the discussion?

We started out from these
assumptions.
Slow down! You're going to fast

for me.
To see what is hidden and highlighted use the schema ARGUMENT is WAR (now
the SOURCE domain would be WAR instead of travelling)
(4)
He won the argument
(5)
He destroyed my line of argumentation


Lakoff & Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By
Lakoff and Johnson (1980, and especially 1999) draw the far-reaching
conclusion that abstract domains cannot be conceptualized in their own
terms as it were, but must always be accessed through metaphor.
Metaphor, therefore, is not just a way of speaking, it is intrinsic to
abstract thought (Taylor 2002: 491).
According to the SOURCE domain, certain aspects of the TARGET domain

are highlighted, others hidden
BUT
How do we know that CMT is not mere speculation, a fairy tale
which does not reflect reality?

Empirical validation: Boroditsky (2000)
Spatial priming will influence temporal reasoning.
Group A: primed with a ego-moving frame

The dark can is in front of me.
Group B: primed with an object-moving frame
Group C: control - without priming.
The black air plane is in front of the white air plane.
10

Empirical validation: Boroditsky (2000)
-
Temporal ambiguous sentence:

Next Wednesdays meeting has been moved forward two days.
To which day was the meeting re-scheduled?

Friday
Monday
Ego-moving frame (A)
73.30%
26.70%
Object-moving frame (B)
30.80%
69.20%
Control (C)
54.30%
45.70%
Results: 71.3% responded prime consistently

11
Metaphors in politics
Can we use CMT to analyse political discourse?

And if so:
How could an analysis of political discourse look like?
12
Case study I The change of metaphors used by Barack Obama
before and after the presidential election of December 2008
Hypothesis
There is a systematic change of metaphors used by Barack

Obama - before the election metaphors are used to gain
votes, while after the election metaphors are used to
persuade Congress.
Speeches
Our Time has come (February 5th, 2008)
A World that Stands as One (July 24th, 2008)
One week (October 27th, 2008)
Inaugural Speech (January 20th, 2009)
State of the Nation (February 24th, 2009)
13
Which metaphors are used?
BUILDING metaphors
ABSTRACT ENTITIES are BUILDINGS

(6) That is the foundation on which the American people expect
us to build common ground. (State of the Nation)

JOURNEY metaphors
(7) With hope and virtue, let us brave once more icy currents, and
endure what storms may come with eyes fixed on the horizon
(Inaugural Speech)
14
Morality
acting morally is keeping a moral book balanced (cf. Lakoff 1996: 45f)
(8) I will restore our moral standing, ('One Week')
Justice
(9) He [Senator McCain] deserves credit for that. (One Week)
(10)I'llstart putting them [tax breaks] in the pockets of working
Americans who deserve it. (Our Time has come)
(11)the greatness of our nation must be earned. (Inaugural Speech)
15
Obama BEFORE election
Source Domain
Obama AFTER election
Amount
Source Domain
Amount
Journey
15 Economic expression
22
Morality & Fairness
12 Journey
13
Person
12 Person
Economic expression
8 Construction
Construction
6 Technical expression
Risk
6 Nature
Education & Care
3 Morality & Fairness
Technical expression
2 Education & Care
Other
2 Other
Total
66
Total
59
16
Conclusion
-
We do observe a change of metaphor use, i.e. a change in SOURCE

domains employed by Barack Obama over time.
- The change is not random but proceeds from ethical to economic.
- Obama uses the SOURCE domain FINANCE and ECONOMY more
frequently after the election, while MORALITY & FAIRNESS is used
with lower frequency.
- The change is (probably) due to altered goals:
while the main purpose before the election was gaining votes, the
main purpose after the election was gaining sympathy and
authority.
17
Do the metaphors employed by Obama and Bush differ?

And if so, how?
18
Case study II A synchronic and diachronic analysis of the use of
metaphors by Barack Obama and George W. Bush, jr.
Hypothesis
If political speakers pursue different political agendas, then we

expect differences in their metaphor systems, while the metaphor
system communicated by an individual speakers will remain rather
stable over time.
Barack Obama
1st speech: October 2nd 2002 (Chicago)
2nd speech: February 27th 2009 (North Carolina)
George W. Bush
1st speech: March 17th 2003
2nd speech: January 10th 2007
19
Obamas speeches: examples
X as a PERSON
(12) Our nations have known difficult times together.
Explanation: knowledge of human beings is mapped onto the thoughts
about complex political entities to improve understanding.
X as a JOURNEY
(13) But hostility and hatred are no match for justice; they offer no pathway to
peace ()
Explanation: convey a strong evaluation of targets and are a potent SOURCE
domain because they offer clear schemas
X as a FINANCAL TRANSACTION
(14) () weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological

agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost ().
Explanation: () money is the most valued entity and therefore should
form the basis for ethical evaluation (Charteris-Black 2005:185)
20
Obama 2002
Source Domain
Obama 2009
Amount
Source Domain
Amount
Finance
7 Person
28
Animal
4 Reification
15
Crime & Punishment
4 Journey
Destruction
3 Creation & Construction
Person
3 Finance
Reification
3 Destruction
Creation & Construction
1 Health
Journey
1 Religion & Morality
Other
4 Other
Total
30
Total
72
21
Bush 2003
Source Domain
Bush 2007
Amount
Person
Source Domain
Amount
16 Person
Destruction
7 Destruction
Reification
3 Creation & Construction
Creation & Construction
2 Sea
Finance
1 Finance
Journey
2 Journey
Religion & Morality
2 Religion & Morality
Sea
1 Reification
Other
0 Other
Total
34
Total
44
22
Findings - similarities
Most SOURCE domains are used by both especially, in later speeches - while some
are restricted to one president
SOURCE domains used by both, Obama and Bush:

(i) PERSON, (ii) JOURNEY, (iii) DESTRUCTION, (iv) REIFICATION, (v) FINANCE, [(vi)
RELIGION]
SOURCE domains used only by only either, Bush or Obama:

(i) ANIMAL [early Obama], (ii) CRIME & PUNISHMENT [early Obama], (iii) HEALTH
[late Obama], and (iv) SEA (Bush)
Most frequent SOURCE domain: PERSON (Obama: 31/ Bush: 25)

[N]ations, political parties, particular systems of political belief or particular
abstract nouns become more arousing by thinking of them as good or bad
people (Charteris-Black 2005: 204)
23
Conclusion
Bushs usage of metaphors
far more consistent
employs the SOURCE domains PERSON and DESTRUCTION frequently
Obama usage of metaphors

-
changed rather dramatically throughout his career as a public speaker
becomes more similar to Bush over time (!)
SOURCE domains (i) PERSON and (ii) RELIGION less and late (cp. Bush)
exclusive SOURCE domains CRIME & PUNISHMENT, HEALTH, ANIMAL
24
Metaphor and War
George Lakoff. 1991.

Metaphor and War:
Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.
25
Metaphor and War

In 1990, Saddam Hussein ...
-
is sitting on our (meaning the USs) economic lifeline (Secretary of

state Baker; cf. Lakoff 1991: 1)
having a stranglehold on the US economy (Bush I; cf. Lakoff 1991: 1)
made Kuwait suffer a rape (Schwarzkopf; cf. Lakoff 1991: 1),
Random quotes reveal systems of underlying

conceptual metaphors to justify a war in
concealing its economic motivations.
26
Metaphor and War
Der Krieg ist eine bloe Fortsetzung der Politik unter

Einbeziehung anderer Mittel
(Clausewitz 1832-34, 1:24)
-
Clausewitz's Metaphor: WAR IS POLITICS PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS.

(Lakoff 1991:1)
POLITICS IS BUSINESS
WAR IS POLITICS + POLITICS IS BUSINESS = WAR IS BUSINESS
Business and, hence, war is to be understood in terms of a cost-benefitanalysis: as long as the gains outweigh the costs, war is the rational
course of action.
27
Metaphor and War
STATES ARE PERSONS having like the latter inherent

traits: peaceful, aggressive, industrious, lazy, etc.
-
WELL-BEING IS WEALTH an economic threat is a death threat
STRENGTH IS MILITARY STRENGTH
MATURITY IS INDUSTRIALISATION underdeveloped countries

are retarded kids, countries developing differently than they are
supposed to are to be disciplined like disobedient teenagers
28
Metaphor and War
With STATES AS PERSONS, the way is clear to employ a

narrative metaphor: The Fairy Tale of the Just War,
featuring a hero, a victim and a villain.
-
Rescue scenario: A villain commits a crime against a victim, the

hero goes forth, defeats the villain, rescues the victim and sets the
record straight.
MORALS ARE ACCOUNTING
Self-Defence scenario: same story, only hero and victim are the
same person.
29
Metaphor and War

Who is the hero? Who is the villain? Who is the victim? What is
the crime?
-
Take 1: self-defence: death threat issued by Iraq/Saddam in cutting oil

supply. War is rational, as long the costs (American lives) do not
outweigh the gains (crude oil). propagandistic failure.
Take 2: rescue: Saddam/Iraq raped Kuwait. US hero to the rescue,

engaging and defeating the villain, rescuing the victim.
30
Metaphor and War
Kuwait, the innocent victim?

-
Absolutist monarchy
Abysmal records in human rights and civil liberties
Capital rich, labour poor: employing millions of foreign workers under
very bad conditions
Tapped Iraqi oilfields by lateral drilling
Economic warfare against Iraq: overproducing oil quota to keep prices
down, buying up Iraqi currency etc.
badly miscast. Yet immaterial to the narrative.
31
Metaphor and War
Clausewitz is one of US, not one of THEM:

-
WAR IS POLITICS PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS presupposes that all

parties act rationally.
But Saddam is the villain and therefore irrational.

- WAR IS VIOLENT CRIME: ASSAULT, MURDER, RAPE, ARSON,
THEFT.
By contrast, the US invasion of Iraq was referred to as military
operations to clean out enemy fortifications. Bombing raids were
renamed surgical strikes.
32
Metaphor and War
Assessing the ledger: the costs of business:

-
only losing assets counts as a cost: dead GIs, loss of military gear,
fuel, bombs
oilspills in Iraq, fires, dead Iraqi civilians etc.: neither are assets, so
they are not costs.
Also not in the calculation: late effects of warfare: PTSD, DUpoisoning; social cost of maintaining a large military rather than
catering to social needs
Also, the ledger is a zero-sum system: Their costs are Our

gains.
33
Metaphor and War
Assessing the ledger: hidden costs:

-
What about the moral cost of advocating war as a rational way of

settling disputes by means of some sort of tally?
What about the cost of quantifying the effects of war, thus hiding
its qualitative reality: death, pain, dismemberment, squalor and
bereavement of thousands?
The US is no hero, Kuwait no victim, and Saddam was

certainly not insane. Neither Clausewitz nor the
ledger metaphor adequately pictures the state of
affairs.
34
Metaphors and War

The facts are long since known.
-
Why is the myth of the fairy tale still retained and not discarded as
incompatible with the facts?
Bush II started gulf war II by asserting Saddam = Al Qaida. No positive

evidence turned up. No nukes either. But around 500,000 Iraqi civilians
were injured or killed by US bombs.
Still the American public largely accepts these ill-fitting metaphors as

fact. Why?
Because these metaphors are highly entrenched frames. When the

facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored.
(George Lakoff. 2003. Metaphor and War, Again).
35
Criticism of CTM
So, sounds pretty convincing, doesnt it?

BUT (!)
What do critics of CMT say about it?
36
Criticism of CTM
1. The use of metaphors does not create conceptions of time, love,
morality, etc. but relies on previous conceptualisation of these ideas. (cf.
Pinker 2006; Taylor 2002: 491).
2. The initial motivation for metaphorical mapping may not be the need to
understand a target domain, but to communicate our conceptualizations
comprehensively to others (cf. Grady 1997).
3. Most metaphors are not processed as metaphors at all: dead
metaphors (Bergen 2005, 2007; Pinker 2006)
(14)to look forward to
(15)to dial (Lochscheibe)
- The metaphorical nature of an expression can fade over time and
with repeated use and will become a conventionalized way of
talking (Taylor 2002: 492).
37
Criticism of CTM
4. CMT does not provide criteria which predict which structures are
mapped and which are not.
THEORIES/ ARGUMENTS ARE BUILDINGS
(16)Is that the foundation of your theory?
(17)The argument is shaky.
-
There are aspects of the TARGET domain that have no correspondence

(Taylor 2002: 495)
(18)Is that the cellar of our theory?
(19)The line of argument has no plumbing.
Those aspects from the building domain that can be mapped on to a

theory can usually be mapped on to other domains as well (Taylor 2002:
496).
(20)The dollar collapsed.
38
Conclusion
We have had a look at CMT, its basic mechanisms and applied it to
political discourse.
We found that
... metaphors enable and improve understanding of complex events.
... metaphor systems change according to the political context of and goals
pursued by political agents (Obama before and after the election)
... applying CMT provides rather unexpected results (Obama becoming more
similar to Bush).
... serves to uncover the mechanisms of political opinion making (Lakoff
1991).
... metaphors seem to manipulate perception (Boroditski 2000).
39
Summary
CMT appears to be appropriate for analysing political discourse on
events such as military conflicts, in which case specific SOURCE
domains (PERSON, REIFICATION, DESTRUCTION) are employed
to hide unwanted implications of the TARGET domain
(heterogeneity of nations; Iraq as an evil villain) while
highlighting aspects which support ones own argument
So, regarding the relationship between aesthetics, i.e. metaphors as
means of conceptualisation and politics, the metaphor of a
marriage of inconvenience does not hold. Rather, it seems a
marriage of necessity. Or if you will a shotgun marriage.
40
References
Baumgarten, Alexander G. 1735. Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema
pertinentibus.
Bergen, Benjamin. 2005. Mental Simulation in Spatial Language Processing.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/; 10/5/2010.
Bergen, Benjamin. 2007. Mental simulation in literal and figurative language

understanding. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/; 10/5/2010.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial
metaphors. In: Cognition 75, 1-28.
Bush, George W. 2003. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq;

19.5.2010.
Bush, George W. 2003.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2349882.shtml?tag=con
tentMain;contentBody ; 19.5.2010.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of
Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
41
References
Clausewitz, Marie von (ed.). 1832-1834. Vom Kriege, Hinterlassenes Werk des
Generals Carl von Clausewitz. Ferdinand Dmmler, Berlin.
Lakoff, George. 1991. Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War
in the Gulf. Part 1.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Lakoff_Gulf_
Metaphor_1.html; 10/5/2010.
Lakoff, George. 1991. Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War
in the Gulf. Part 2.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Lakoff_Gulf_
Metaphor_2.html; 10/5/2010.
Lakoff, George. 2003. Metaphor and War, Again.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15414; 10/5/2010.
Obama, Barack.
2002.http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.
php; 19.5.2010.
Obama, Barack. 2009.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/02/27/president-obamasspeech-on-ending-the-war-in-iraq.html?PageNr=1 ; 19.5.2010.
42
References
Oxford English Dictionary. http://emedien.sub.unihamburg.de/han/OxfordEnglishDictionary/dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/003074
29?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=metaphor&first=1&max_to_show=
10; 10/5/2010.
Pinker, Steven. 2006. Block That Metaphor!
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html
; 10/5/2010.
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
43

Killing Metaphors. A Contrastive Analysi PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Killing Metaphors. A Contrastive Analysi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Killing Metaphors.

Analysing conceptual metaphors in current

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

CMT applied to politics

Obamas metaphors before and after his election

Use of metaphors: Obama vs. G.W. Bush, jr.

CMT applied to political speeches on war

Aesthetics original sense

study of apperception/ perception (Wahrnehmung)

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

to carry over gr.: () meta between & () phero to bear, to

A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is

Figurative versus literal meaning

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Metaphors are ubiquitous in ordinary language and cannot be

Metaphors exhibit a high degree of systematicity and coherence

Metaphors are not simply a manner of speaking, but a mode of

We understand abstract notions in terms of simple, concrete

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Metaphor involves a mapping relation between two domains

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

We haven't reached a conclusion,

Where are you going with this?

... following an argument

Where are you in the discussion?

Slow down! You're going to fast

He won the argument

He destroyed my line of argumentation

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

According to the SOURCE domain, certain aspects of the TARGET domain

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Group A: primed with a ego-moving frame

Group B: primed with an object-moving frame

Group C: control - without priming.

The black air plane is in front of the white air plane.

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Temporal ambiguous sentence:

To which day was the meeting re-scheduled?

Ego-moving frame (A)

Object-moving frame (B)

Results: 71.3% responded prime consistently

Can we use CMT to analyse political discourse?

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

There is a systematic change of metaphors used by Barack

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

ABSTRACT ENTITIES are BUILDINGS

us to build common ground. (State of the Nation)

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

Obama AFTER election

Morality & Fairness

Education & Care

3 Morality & Fairness

2 Education & Care

Killing Metaphors: Ringvorlesung 'Politik & sthetik' 2010

We do observe a change of metaphor use, i.e. a change in SOURCE

Do the metaphors employed by Obama and Bush differ?