Cover not available
Part of
Variation in Political Metaphor
Edited by Julien Perrez, Min Reuchamps and Paul H. Thibodeau
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 85] 2019
► pp. 177–194

Chapter 8
Variation in methods for studying political metaphor

Comparing experiments and discourse analysis

This chapter explores methodological variation in the study of political metaphor, focusing on a comparison of two approaches: the Critical Discourse Approach (CDA) and experiments (the Response Elicitation Approach; REA). What kinds of political metaphors have been investigated on the two approaches and what insights have these studies revealed? What are the strengths and limitations of each approach? As cognitive psychologists, we have more experience with experiments, and our discussion is grounded in an exposition of the logic and mechanics of experimental design. But we advocate for methodological pluralism because understanding political metaphor is a multifaceted, interdisciplinary endeavor. Some research questions are better addressed through discourse analysis; others are better addressed with experiments; scholars should use the method that is best suited to addressing their research question.
Keywords: Metaphor, discourse analysis, research methods, psychology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An empirical comparison of discourse-based and experimental approaches to studying political metaphor
  • 3.The logic and mechanics of an experiment
    • 3.1The components of an experiment
    • 3.2Experimental choices
    • 3.3Experimental obligations
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.The logic and mechanics of discourse analysis
    • 4.1Similarities to experiments
    • 4.2Differences from experiments
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.A return to empirical similarities and differences
  • 6.Limitations of experiments and discourse analysis: A crossroads, with avenues for future research
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.85.08thi
References (26)
References
Ahn, H. K., Kim, H. J. & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Helping fellow beings anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25, 224–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. (1985). Psychology and epistemology: The place versus response controversy. Cognition, 20, 127–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartolucci, V. (2012). Terrorism rhetoric under the Bush administration: Discourses and effects. Journal of Language and Politics, 11, 562–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2017). The effects of metaphorical framing on political persuasion: A systematic literature review. Metaphor and Symbol, 32, 118–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). When is a linguistic metaphor a conceptual metaphor? New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 127–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication, 11, 769–783. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godoy, E. S., & Jaffe, A. (2016, October 31). We don’t need a ‘war’ on climate change, we need a revolution. The New York Times. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from [URL]Google Scholar
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 66–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, C., Van Nistelrooij, M., Olislagers, K., Van Sambeek, M., & De Stadler, L. (2010). A fire station in your body: Metaphors in educational texts on HIV/AIDS. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28, 133–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20, 1421–1427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGlone, M. S. (2011). Hyperbole, homunculi, and hindsight bias: An alternative evaluation of conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48, 563–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nurin, T. (2016, August 31). In race against climate change, innovations to this ingredient could determine the future of brewing. Forbes. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from [URL]Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). The metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS ONE, 6, e16782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS ONE, 8(1), e52961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). How linguistic metaphor scaffolds reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 852–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Vandeleene, Audrey, François Randour, Jérémy Dodeigne, Pauline Heyvaert, Thomas Legein, Julien Perrez & Min Reuchamps
2023. Metaphors, political knowledge and the basic income debate in Belgium. Metaphor and the Social World 13:2 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2022. “World-beating” Pandemic Responses: Ironical, Sarcastic, and Satirical Use of War and Competition Metaphors in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol 37:2 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2023. Culture-specific variation in interpretations of nations as bodies metaphors by English and German L1 speakers. In Cultural Linguistics and Critical Discourse Studies [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 103], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Wong, Emily F. & Keith J. Holyoak
2021. Cognitive and motivational factors driving sharing of internet memes. Memory & Cognition 49:5 ► pp. 863 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 14 october 2024. 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.