2004

2004, viii + 211 pp., hb.

2005

Metaphor and the Social World, 2015

Metaphor and the Social World, 2015

So called 'mixed metaphors' are not discrete, clearly identifiable on straightforward semantic grounds but a continuum of phenomena, ranging from ‘bold’ and insightful images over dubious cases of inadvertent metaphorical puns to plainly ludicrous image mixes and, lastly, to ironical word-play, working on the double-entendre of conventional metaphors. What matters most in all cases is the relationship between source and target domain; as long as they are structurally coherent with each other and thus allow for analogical exploitation to help make an argumentative or rhetorical point, almost any degree of internal inconsistency or implausibility of the source domain seems permissible. On the other hand, the combination of incongruent, if closely related, domains in a metaphor can lead to inadvertent puns, generating grotesque communicative mishaps. However, the precise conditions of this ‘dangerous semantic proximity’ still need to be explored further; in particular, they need to be freed of potential ontological associations which still seem to linger on in some cognitivist definitions of the metaphorical “mapping” relationship. The assumption of inherent ‘ontological’ correspondences between source and target domains (which in Lakoff and Johnson’s model is meant to ‘underwrite’ the definition of metaphor as a cognitive phenomenon) entails the concept of structurally well-defined source domains. But such a concept is not borne out by the corpus data. Furthermore, as we saw in section (2), modern metaphor theory cannot rely on fixed ‘objective’ ontologies to determine which meaning domains are (too) ‘close’ or ‘distant’ to each other, or which degree of ‘internal inconsistency’ is permissible in a particular metaphorical statement or not. The criteria for the ‘fit’ or ‘non-fit’ between source and target domains should therefore be sought in their relationship vis-à-vis each other rather than in the ‘immanent’ consistency of source domains.

The application of conceptual metaphor analysis to the critical study of political discourse has generated a wealth of publications over the past decades. This paper attempts to take stock of some of the theoretical developments in the field and reflect on their contribution to methodological advances in metaphor research generally and to the understanding of metaphor in political discourse in particular. The data comprise metaphorisations of the state as a (human) body, which has played a prominent role in Western political thought and discourse. This metaphor field shows a high degree of semantic variation, both intra- and cross-culturally, and thus invites an analysis that reflects their universality and/or cultural specificity. It is therefore argued that the conceptualist/cognitive approach to the analysis of political metaphors needs to be complemented by pragmatic and discourse-historical methodologies.

2014

This article proposes to apply Steen’s (2008) three-dimensional model of metaphor analysis in communication to a corpus of political discourse, in this case citizen discourse. Our corpus has accordingly been analysed by making a distinction between three layers of metaphor, respectively at the linguistic (direct vs. indirect metaphors), conceptual (novel vs. conventional metaphors) and communicative levels (deliberate vs. non-deliberate metaphors). Our results suggest that making the distinction between deliberate and non- deliberate metaphors leads to meaningful political insights, notably pointing to differences in saliency of the source domains in terms of which citizens make sense of Belgian federalism. In this regard, the family domain, and more especially the metaphor BELGIAN FEDERALISM IS A LOVE RELATIONSHIP appears to function as an important conceptual reference point for the citizens’ understanding of the political relations in the Belgian context.

Mots. Les Langages du Politique., 2015

This paper proposes a quantitative and qualitative corpus-based analysis of the use of metaphors in political discourse from the original perspective of citizen discourse. Our data were collected from focus group discussions respectively held in the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking parts of Belgium, which tackled the citizens’ perceptions of Belgian federalism. Our findings suggest that citizens do produce metaphors when talking about complex political processes and that these metaphors reveal different political visions. This research also suggests differences in saliency of the source domains in terms of which citizens make sense of Belgian federalism. In this regard, the family domain, and more especially the metaphor BELGIAN FEDERALISM IS A LOVE RELATIONSHIP appears to function as an important conceptual reference point for the citizens’ understanding of the political relations in the Belgian context.