Scepticism voiced through extended metaphors
Assessment of higher education reform in the media
When metaphors appear in a text in clusters within the same source domain, they are usually referred to as an
extended metaphor (
Gibbs, 2015;
Naciscione,
2016;
Semino, 2008;
Shutova,
2015;
Thibodeau, 2016;
Werth, 1994).
This creates a coherent narrative or a scenario (
Musolff, 2016) encoding the evaluation
of a particular socially-contested issue. The present study analyses how the evaluation of higher education reform in Lithuanian
media is manifested through extended metaphor and whether negative evaluations prevail. For this investigation, a corpus of
Lithuanian media texts on higher education reform was examined within the frameworks of Critical Metaphor Analysis (
Charteris-Black, 2014) and scenarios (
Musolff,
2016). The findings show that, when extended metaphors are ascribed positive, negative or mixed values and categorised
into mini-narratives, leitmotif narratives and long narratives, they usually (24 out of 28) follow negatively and often
death-related and ironically encoded narratives with differently twisted scenarios. This study, therefore, shows a persistent
attempt by the media to evaluate the ongoing reform negatively.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Evaluation and extended metaphor
- 3.Data and methods
- Metaphor identification
- Metaphor interpretation
- Metaphor explanation
- 4.Extended metaphors framing the reform of higher education
- 4.1Death-related metaphorical narratives
- 4.2Other metaphorical narratives
- 5.Ideological implications of extended metaphor
- 6.Conclusions
- Note
-
Cited sources
-
References
References (47)
Cited sources
15min_1 Dideli premjero užmojai: aukštojo mokslo ir esminė mokesčių reformos – jau
kitąmet (20–12–2017) [URL]
15 min_2 Aukštasis mokslas, arba Kieno ausys
ilgiausios? (05–01–2017) [URL]
15min_3 Artėjant mūšiui Seime dėl aukštojo mokslo
Lietuvoje (19–06–2017) [URL]
15min_4 „Fake law“ invazija
universitetuose (09–03–2018) [URL]
TV3_1 Ministrė apie universitetų pertvarką: siūlėme vykti greitkeliu, pasirinktas
plentas (24–06–2017) [URL]
TV3_2 Stabdo masinio stojimo į universitetus madą: net mokant pinigus, bus sunkiau
gauti diplomą (14–05–2017) [URL]
LR_1 Lietuvos aukštojo mokslo laidotuvės – mokslininkai uždirba kaip
vairuotojai (11–12–2017) [URL]
References
Ahrens, K., & Jiang, M. (2020). Source
domain verification using corpus-based tools. Metaphor and
Symbol,
35
(1), 43–55.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation
in media discourse. Analysis of a newspaper corpus. Research in Corpus and
Discourse. Continuum.
Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2012/2019). News
discourse. Bloomsbury Academic.
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. (2016). Figurative
framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, irony. Communication
Theory,
26
1, 410–430.
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., & Low, G. (2010). Finding
systematicity in metaphor use. Metaphor analysis. Research practice in applied linguistics,
social sciences and the
Humanities (pp. 116–146). Equinox.
Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analysing
political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coll-Florit, M., & Climent, S. (2019). A
new methodology for conceptual metaphor detection and formulation in corpora: A case study on a mental health
corpus. SKY Journal of
Linguistics,
32
1, 43–74.
Crisp, P. (2005). Allegory
and symbol – a fundamental opposition? Language and
Literature,
14
(4), 323–338.
Deignan, A. (2017). From
linguistic to conceptual metaphors. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of metaphor and
language (pp. 102–116). Routledge.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing:
Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication,
43
(4), 51–58.
Fogarty, B. J. (2005). Determining
economic news coverage. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research,
17
(2), 149–172.
Fuoli, M., Littlemore, J., & Turner, S. (2021). Sunken
ships and screaming banshees: metaphor and evaluation in film reviews. English Language and
Linguistics,
26
(1), 75–103.
Gibbs, R. (2017). Metaphor
wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press.
Hidalgo-Downing, L., & Pérez-Sobrino, P. (in
press). ‘Pushing Britain off the precipice’: A CDA approach to negative evaluative stance in
opinion articles on Brexit. In J. Marín-Arrese, L. Hidalgo-Downing & J. R. Zamorano Mansilla (Eds.) Stance
(inter)subjectivity and identity in discourse. Peter Lang.
Hidalgo-Downing, L., & Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2022). Developing
an annotation protocol for evaluative stance and metaphor in discourse: theoretical and methodological
considerations. Text & Talk.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus
approaches to evaluation, phraseology and evaluative
language. Routledge.
Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor
clusters in business media discourse: a social cognition approach [Doctoral
thesis, University of Vienna]. University of Vienna.
Kövecses, Z. (2021). A
multilevel and contextualist view of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of Language and
Communication,
8
(2), 133–143.
Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors
in the mind: Sources of variation in embodied metaphor. Cambridge University Press.
Littlemore, J., & Turner, S. (2022, April 21–22). Creative
metaphor, emotion and evaluation in conversations about work [Paper
presentation]. Figurative Thought and Language Conference, Poznan,
Poland.
Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen and Alfonso Sánchez-Moya (in
press). ‘Histrionic, appalling, a major turkey’: The expression of evaluative stance in the
discourse of online forums’. In J. Marín-Arrese, L. Hidalgo-Downing & J. R. Zamorano (Eds.), Stance,
inter/subjectivity and identity in discourse. Peter Lang.
Martin, J., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The
language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
MESS. 2018. Ministry of Education, Science
and Sport of the Republic of Lithuania [URL] [Accessed 18 June 2019].
Musolff, A. (2016). Political
metaphor analysis: Discourse and
scenarios. Bloomsbury.
Paulauskas, J. (2015). Sisteminis lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Systemic Dictionary of
Lithuanian]. Mokslas. [URL]
Reinierse, G. (2021, February 8). Introducing
MSDIP: A method for coding source domains in metaphor analysis [Webinar
paper]. Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong
Kong.
Reijnierse, G. (2021, February 8). Introducing MSDIP: A method for coding source domains in metaphor analysis [paper presentation]. Joint online seminar by Department of English and Research Centre for English Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. [URL]
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor
in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Shutova, E. (2015). Design
and evaluation of metaphor processing systems. Computational
Linguistics.
41
(4), 579–623.
Soroka, S. (2006). Good
news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. The Journal of
Politics,
68
(2), 372–385.
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., Pasma, T. (2010). A
Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification. John Benjamins.
Thibodeau, P. (2016). Extended
metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and
Symbol,
31
(2), 53–72.
Thompson, G., Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:
An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation
in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of
Discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.
Trussler, M., & Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer
demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of
Press/Politics,
19
(3), 360–379.
Urbonaitė, J., Šeškauskienė, I., & Cibulskienė, J. (2019). Linguistic
metaphor identification in Lithuanian. In S. Nacey, A. G. Dorst, T. Krennmayr & W. G. Reijnierse (Eds.), Metaphor
identification in multiple languages. MIPVU around the
world (pp. 159–181). John Benjamins.
Werth, P. (1994). Extended
metaphor – a text-world account. Language and Literature: International Journal of
Stylistics,
3
(2), 79–103.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.