Chapter published in:
The Language of Crisis: Metaphors, frames and discourses
Edited by Mimi Huang and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 87] 2020
► pp. 169–196

Chapter 6
Metaphors for protest

The persuasive power of cross-domain mappings on demonstration posters against Stuttgart 21

Heated debates can inspire people to make use of creative linguistic means such as metaphor to express their point of view. In this chapter, I investigate the emotional appeal and persuasive power of metaphors on demonstration posters used by opponents of the railway modernization project Stuttgart 21 in Germany. In this context, metaphors are used both to construct and fuel the crisis. Protesters often draw on quite drastic conceptual mappings to aggravate existing tensions, demonize their ‘enemies,’ and express strong negative emotions like anger or fear. An examination of resistant discourses cannot only shed light on people’s attitudes towards elites, but also enhance our understanding of political protest in general.
Keywords: Stuttgart 21, protest discourse, conceptual metaphor, Critical Discourse Studies, Critical Metaphor Theory, emotion, persuasion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Contextual background
    • 1.2Research questions
  • 2.Conceptual metaphor theory: Three adjustments
    • 2.1Terminological clarity
    • 2.2Labeling conceptual mappings
    • 2.3Context-dependent and discourse-pragmatic functions: Metaphor in cognitive linguistic approaches within critical discourse studies
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.The language of protest exemplified by Stuttgart 21 demonstration posters
    • 4.1The role of resistant discourses in formulating (counter-)ideologies
    • 4.2Constructing a political crisis: The target concept democracy
    • 4.3The political myth of corruptive politicians: Crime and immoral behavior
    • 4.4Expression of emotional attitude through violent metaphors
      • 4.4.1 destruction, war and terror as source concepts
      • 4.4.2Religious source domains: hell and devil
      • 4.4.3Mental illness domains: delusion and insanity
      • 4.4.4 darkness, doom and death as source domains
    • 4.5Demonization and personification through metaphor
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.87.06kot
References
Alba-Juez, Laura, and Geoff Thompson
2014 “The Many Faces and Phases of Evaluation.” In Evaluation in Context, ed. by Geoff Thompson, and Laura Alba-Juez, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, John
2009 “Metaphor and Context: A Perspective from Artificial Intelligence.” In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 79–94. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow
2000 “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bosman, Jan
1987 “Persuasive Effects of Political Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 2 (2): 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne, and Alice Deignan
2006 “The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse.” Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 671–690. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne, Robert Maslen, Zazie Todd, John Maule, Peter Stratton, and Neil Stanley
2009 “The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis.” Metaphor and Symbol 24 (2): 63–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne
2008 “Metaphor and Talk.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 197–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2004 Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Second Edition . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
2011 “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 303–330. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2005 “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct.” In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Paul Chilton, 19–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft
1997 “The Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors.” Cognitive Science 21 (3): 247–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Rycker, Antoon, and Zuraidah Mohd Don
(eds.) 2013 Discourse and Crisis: Critical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fainsilber, Lynn, and Andrew Ortony
1987 “Metaphorical Uses of Language in the Expression of Emotions.” Metaphor and Symbol 2 (4): 239–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2010 Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Federica
2007 “Metaphor at Work in the Analysis of Political Discourse: Investigating a ‘Preventive War’ Persuasion Strategy.” Discourse & Society 18 (5): 603–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flood, Christopher
1996 Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Geiss, Michael L.
1987 The Language of Politics. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2011 “Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Discourse Processes 48 (8): 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Do Pragmatic Signals Affect Conventional Metaphor Understanding? A Failed Test of Deliberate Metaphor Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 77–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Julia E. Lonergan
2009 “Studying Metaphor in Discourse: Some Lessons, Challenges and New Data.” In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 251–261. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam
2008 “How Metaphors Create Categories – Quickly.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 67–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew
2007 Washing the Brain. Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph E.
1997 “Theories Are Buildings Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4): 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher
2010 Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher, and Darren Kelsey
(eds.) 2019 Discourses of Disorder: Riots, Strikes and Protests in the Media. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Haubl, Rolf
2007 “Gattungsschicksal Hass.” In Hass und Gewaltbereitschaft, ed. by Rolf Haubl, and Volker Caysa, 7–68. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin
1996 “Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the ‘Winter of Discontent’.” Sociology 30 (2): 253–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jasper, James M.
1998 “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 13 (3): 397–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalmoe, Nathan P.
2014 “Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence.” Political Communication 31: 545–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jürgen
2010 “Sprache und Macht.” APuZ. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 8: 7–13.Google Scholar
Kotzur, Gerrit
2019 “Crying Children and Bleeding Pensioners against Rambo’s Troop: Perspectivisation in German Newspaper Reports on Stuttgart 21 Protests.” In Discourses of Disorder: Riots, Strikes and Protests in the Media, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Darren Kelsey, 75–92. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
1990 Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
2003 [1980] Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich
1967 Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, Matthew S.
2007 “What Is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor?” Language and Communication 27: 109–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mio, Jeffery Scott
1997 “Metaphor and Politics.” Metaphor and Symbol 12 (2): 113–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molotch, Harvey, and Marilyn Lester
1981 “News as Purposive Behaviour: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals.” In The Manufacture of News. Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media, ed. by Stanley Cohen, and Jock Young, 118–137. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas
2012 “The Study of Metaphor as Part of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Critical Discourse Studies 9 (3): 301–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Metaphor and Political Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pörksen, Bernhard
2005 Die Konstruktion von Feindbildern. Zum Sprachgebrauch in neonazistischen Medien. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, David
2003 “ ‘ARGUMENT IS WAR’ – Or Is It a Game of Chess? Multiple Meanings in the Analysis of Implicit Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2): 125–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Shani, and Richard E. Mayer
2000 „The Metaphor Framing Effect: Metaphorical Reasoning about Text-Based Dilemmas.“ Discourse Processes 30 (1): 57–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Roland
2011 Bürgermacht. Eine Streitschrift für mehr Partizipation. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika
2013 Sprache und Emotion. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Skirl, Helge, and Monika Schwarz-Friesel
2013 Metapher. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Skirl, Helge
2009 Emergenz als Phänomen der Semantik am Beispiel des Metaphernverstehens. Emergente konzeptuelle Merkmale an der Schnittstelle von Semantik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2010 “Kompositummetaphern – semantische Innovation und textpragmatische Funktion.” Metaphorik.de 19: 23–45.Google Scholar
Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard
2002 “The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor. A Meta-Analysis.” Human Communication Research 28 (3): 382–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard
2008 “The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol 23 (4): 213–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Josef
2000 Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tendahl, Markus, and Raymond W. Gibbs
2008 “Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ulich, Dieter, and Philipp Mayring
2003 Psychologie der Emotionen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Underhill, James W.
2011 Creating Worldviews: Metaphor, Ideology and Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1998 Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Vervaeke, John, and John M. Kennedy
1996 “Metaphors in Language and Thought: Falsification and Multiple Meanings.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11: 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Hannelore
1994 Ärger: Psychologie einer alltäglichen Emotion. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
Wouters, Ruud
2016 “Do Targets React and Third Parties Comment? Responsiveness and Scope Expansion in Television News Items of Protest.” Social Movement Studies 15 (6): 577–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar