This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nts.
The social grounding of metaphors is also pronounced in Musolff
(2004), who proposes to employ the concept of the given scenario within
the metaphorical framework to solve the problem of cross-linguistic differences between German and British media representation of the debates
about Europe. He shows how, within the same conceptual metaphor, different sets of mappings are selected in different discourses, giving rise to contradictory axiological values of the overall representations. For example, in
the COMMON EUROPEAN HOUSE metaphor introduced to European politics
by Gorbachev, different source language cultures may lead to different implications. That is, in Russian, a house is usually a tenement block with
many flats, which implies some independence within the flats, but also
stresses a need for communal effort in servicing and managing the whole
building. In the US and Britain a house is single-family small building set
in a garden, fenced with walls. In this structure of the Source Domain the
focus is on the separation from the others, not on co-operation.
Charteris-Black (2004) places the study of metaphor firmly within
a discourse analytic framework and proposes to call it Critical Metaphor
Analysis. There are two valuable theoretical contributions in his work.
The first is the suggestion that the reversal of metaphors, where X IS Y
subliminally facilitates the use of Y IS X, is quite common. The author exemplifies it with FOOTBALL IS WAR and WAR IS FOOTBALL. The second issue concerns methodology and calls for enhancing qualitative data analysis with quantitative metaphor frequency counts made possible by the use
of language corpora. This topic will be further elaborated on in Chapter
Two Section 4.
Zinken (2004) attempts to combine CMT with the Ethnolinguistic
School of Lublin (ESL) developed by Bartmiński (see, for example 1999)
and points out that within ESL, metaphor is just one among many important means of stereotyping, i.e. building a linguistic representation of the
world. This representation has a clear social (interpersonal), as well as
cognitive (intrapersonal) function, as within Bartmiński’s paradigm
“stereotypes are viewed as chiefly cognitive phenomenon, with evaluative
function of enforcing in- and out-groups” relations (Zinken 2004: 116).
Zinken identifies the major difference between the two approaches. For 34 Chapter I instance, within CMT only representations stemming from direct sensorimotor experience are seen as literal, while others seem to be interpreted as
metaphorical. ESL, on the other hand, makes a distinction between myth
(conventional) and metaphor (performative), defined by Zinken (2004:
132) in the following words:
The distinction between metaphors and myths serves the purpose to distinguish two types of an imaginative, narrative understanding of the
world: a type in which the speaker – more or less unconsciously – (linguistically) behaves according to a particular picture of the world (=the
mythical type), and a type in which a speaker (linguistically) acts upon
this picture (=the metaphorical type) (Zinken 2002). Metaphoric acts can
View Full Document