The Therapeutic Function of Metaphor: the Case of Emotions in the Croatian Public Discourse

Article Sidebar

PDF (Język Polski)
Published: Dec 4, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/pss.2015.9.6
Keywords:
deliberate metaphor, emotions, political discourse, Croatia, comments section of online newspapers, therapeutic function of metaphor

Main Article Content

Mateusz-Milan Stanojević
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
Višnja Čičin-Šain
Sveučilište u Zagrebu

Abstract

In this paper we (re-)examine the role of deliberate metaphors in the public discourse. Based on an analysis of metaphorical comments to the articles reporting on a dispute between the Croatian Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, we argue that in addition to a number of established discursive functions, metaphor may perform a therapeutic function aiding commenters in working through their emotions. Our analyses of the course that comments take shows that they are not structured according to a usual turn-taking logic, but rather on the basis of the coherence of the emotions shared by the commenters. Moreover, the tripartite internal structure of the comments (identifying the critical event, running the blend, possibly offering a solution to the critical event) is aimed at symbolically delegitimizing politicians, putting the author in charge of the experience, thus enabling him/her to work through it. Theoretically, such a view suggests that on the discourse level it is not necessarily metaphor that is used as the structuring device, but that emotion can structure metaphor.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Stanojević, M.-M., & Čičin-Šain, V. (2015). The Therapeutic Function of Metaphor: the Case of Emotions in the Croatian Public Discourse. Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne, (9), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.14746/pss.2015.9.6
Issue
No. 9 (2015): Emotywny aspekt języka w słowiańskim dyskursie publicznym
Section
EMOTYWNY ASPEKT JĘZYKA W SŁOWIAŃSKIM DYSKURSIE PUBLICZNYM

Authors

The authors of the articles accepted for publication in the journal Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne are obliged to fill up the contract for providing the journal free licence (along with sub-licence CC) to works. The contract should be also signed by the authors and sent back to the editorial board of the journal.

Under the terms of the contract, the authors of the texts published in the journal Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne provide the University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznań with a non-exclusive free licence and allow the aforementioned institution to use the sub-licence Creative Commons   Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).  (under 10.2020:  Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International CC BY-ND 4.0).

The authors hold the copyright for their texts.

Users

The Internet users are eligible for using the works published in Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne from 2015 under the following conditions:

  • recognition of the authorship: the popularized work must contain information about the author, title, source (references to the original work, DOI) and licence.

The copyright to the texts published before 2015 is reserved.

Other

The University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznań holds the right for the entire journal (its segmentation, graphical form, title, cover design, logo, etc.).

References

  1. Cameron L., 2003, Metaphor in educational discourse, London.
  2. Cavalcanti M.C., Bizon A.C., 2008, En Route through Metaphors: Chatrooms as Safe Places to Deal with Difficulties, in: Confronting Metaphor in Use: An Applied Linguistic Approach, ed. M.S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, M.C. Cavalcanti, Amsterdam––Philadelphia, p. 243–65.
  3. Charteris-Black J., 2011, Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor, Houndmills–Basingstoke–Hampshire–New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899
  4. Delfino M., Manca S., 2007, The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a web-based learning environment, “Computers in Human Behavior” no. 5, p. 2190–2211, DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.001
  5. De Landtsheer C., 2009, Collecting Political Meaning from the Count of Metaphor, in: Metaphor and Discourse, ed. A. Musolff, J. Zinken, Basingstoke, p. 59–78.
  6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_5
  7. Fauconnier G., Turner M., 2003, The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities, New York.
  8. Frank R.M., 2008, Introduction:Sociocultural situatedness, in: Body, Language, and Mind, vol. 2, Sociocultural situatedness, ed. R.M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, E. Bernárdez, Berlin–New York, p. 1–18.
  9. Geeraerts D., Gevaert C., and Speelman, D., 2011, How anger rose: Hypothesis testing in diachronic semantics, in: Current Methods in Historical Semantics, ed. K. Allan, J.A. Robinson, Berlin–Boston, p. 109–131.
  10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110252903.109
  11. Griffiths P., Scarantino A., 2009, Emotions in the Wild: The Situated Perspective on Emotion, in: The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, ed. P. Robbins, M. Aydede, New York, p. 473–453.
  12. Hampel R., 2006, Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment, “ReCALL” no. 1, p. 105–121, DOI:10.1017/S0958344006000711.
  13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000711
  14. Hart C., 2008, Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: toward a theoretical framework, “Critical Discourse Studies” no. 2, p. 91–106, DOI:10.1080/17405900801990058.
  15. Hart C., 2010, Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Policies, Basingstoke.
  16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058
  17. Henrich N., Holmes B., 2013, Web news readers’ comments: Towards developing a methodology for using on–line comments in social inquiry, “Journal of Media and Communication Studies” no. 1, p. 1–4, DOI:10.5897/JMCS11.103.
  18. Johnson M., 1993, Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics, Chicago–London.
  19. Kimmel M., 2010, Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond, “Journal of Pragmatics” no. 1, p. 97–115, doi : 16/j.pragma.2009.05.017.
  20. Koller V., 2005, Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse, “Discourse & Society” no. 2, p. 199–224, DOI:10.1177/0957926505049621.
  21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621
  22. Koller V., 2013, Metaphern in der Palliativversorgung und Sterbebegleitung, “Leidfaden” no. 2, p. 13–15, DOI: 10.13109/leid.2013.2.3.13.
  23. http://dx.doi.org/10.13109/leid.2013.2.3.13
  24. Kövecses Z., 2000, Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling, Cambridge–New York.
  25. Kövecses Z., 2012, Emotion concepts in cultural context: the case of happiness, Dynamicity in emotion concepts, ed. P.A. Wilson, Frankfurt am Main–Berlin–Bern–Bruxelles–New York–Oxford–Warszawa-Wien, p. 159–182.
  26. Lakoff G., Johnson M., 1980, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago–London.
  27. Lakoff G., 1993, The contemporary theory of metaphor, in: Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, Cambridge, p. 202–251.
  28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
  29. Littlemore J., Low G., 2006, Figurative thinking and foreign language learning, Basingstoke–New York.
  30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230627567
  31. Manosevitch E., Walker D.M., 2009, Reader Comments to Online Opinion Journalism: A Space of Public Deliberation, Conference paper. 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April 2009, <https://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf>, 12.02.1015.
  32. Musolff A., 2004, Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe, Basingstoke–New York.
  33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516
  34. Robert T., Kelly V.A., 2010, Metaphor as an Instrument for Orchestrating Change In Counselor Training and the Counseling Process, “Journal of Counseling & Development” no.2, p.182–188, DOI:10.1002/j.1556–6678.2010.tb00007.x.
  35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00007.x
  36. Semino E., 2014, Metaphors at the end of life: results from a large study, Conference paper presented at the 8th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), Lleida, Spain, <http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/melc/EAPC2014–slides.pdf>, 12.02.2015.
  37. Stanojević M.-M., 2013, Konceptualna metafora: temeljni pojmovi, teorijski pristupi i metode, Zagreb.
  38. Stanojević M.-M., Ljubičić M., Tralić I., 2014, Grammatical information and conceptual metaphors: the case of anger, in: Language and Information: Proceedings from the CALS conference 2102, ed. M.-M. Stanojević, A. Peti-Satntić, Frankfurt am Main–Berlin–Bern–Bruxelles–New York–Oxford–Wien, p. 131–154.
  39. Steen G., 2008, The paradox of metaphor: why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor, “Metaphor and Symbol” no. 4, p. 213–241, DOI:10.1080/10926480802426753.
  40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753
  41. Steen G., 2014, Deliberate Metaphor Affords Conscious Metaphorical Cognition, “Cognitive Semiotics” no. 5, p.179–197.
  42. Traugott E.C., 2008, ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was...’ On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts, in: Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. R. Cooper, R. Kempson, London, p. 143–177.
  43. Šarić Lj., 2014, Metafora, diskurs i društvo, in: Metafore koje istražujemo: suvremeni uvidi u konceptualnu metaforu, ed. M.-M. Stanojević, Zagreb, p. 169–202.
  44. Verhagen A., 2005, Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax, and cognition, Oxford.
  45. Wilce J.M., 2009, Language and Emotion, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626692
  46. Zinken J., Hellsten I., Nerlich B., 2008, Discourse metaphors, in: Body,Language, and Mind. Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness, ed. R.M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, E. Bernárdez, Berlin–New York, p. 363–387.
  47. Zinken J., Musolff A. (ed.), 2009, Metaphor and Discourse, Basingstoke.