Cover not available
Part of
Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 363–388

Figurative production in a computer-mediated discussion forum

Metaphors about relationship abuse

| Inland Norway University of Applied Science

When people undergo traumatic events, they frequently turn to metaphor in an attempt to make what might initially seem indescribable into something comprehensible to others, and/or to help themselves reach a clearer understanding of what has happened to them. This investigation explores such metaphorical language produced in computer-mediated discourse by survivors of relationship abuse to communicate about various aspects of their experience, thus shedding light on a traditionally “taboo” subject that many people find difficult to broach. The analysis first explores the ways survivors “frame” their experience through a particular source domain, and then looks at the various source domain “scenarios” that are drawn upon to elaborate particular salient details of the abuse. The chapter thus builds upon established theories about metaphorical frames and scenarios to explore what we may learn about a particular group (i.e. relationship abuse survivors) through analyzing their production of metaphor. In this way, it demonstrates why the theory of metaphor and the field of figurative language production matter in the real world.

Keywords: metaphorical analogies, relationship abuse, computer-mediated discourse, frames, scenarios
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: Metaphor, frames and scenarios
  • 3.Material and methods
    • 3.1Primary data
    • 3.2Identification and analytical procedures
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1 Frames
    • 4.2Selected scenarios
    • 4.3Negotiation among posters
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.13nac
References
Archer, D., Wilson, A., & Rayson, P.
(2002) Introduction to the USAS category system. Lancaster: Lancaster University. [URL]Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2011) Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2010) The cognitive view of metaphor: Conceptual metaphor theory. In L. Cameron, & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp. 44–56). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z.
(2016) Laughing at cancer: Humour, empowerment, solidarity and coping online. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demmen, J., Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Payne, S.
(2015) A computer-assisted study of the use of Violence metaphors for cancer and end of life by patients, family carers and health professionals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 205–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entman, R. M.
(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S.
(1999) When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1541–1558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A.
(2011) The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Semino, E.
(2008) Using a semantic annotation tool for the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Metaphorik.de, 15, 141–160. [URL]Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 
(2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C., & Sánchez-Moya, A.
(2017) ‘I Know How You Feel’: Multifaceted Insights into the Expression of Support Strategies in Computer-Mediated-Communication. In C. Vargas-Sierra (Ed.), Professional and academic discourse: An interdisciplinary perspective (Vol. 2, pp. 214–223). AESLA 2016 (EPiC Series in Language and Linguistics).Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rayson, P.
(2009) Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department: Lancaster University. [URL]Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]Google Scholar
Semino, E., & Demjén, Z.
(2018) An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 625–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
(2017) The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: A mixed methods study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 7(1), 60–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Reijnierse, W. G., & Burgers, C.
(2014) When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PLoS One, 9(12), e113536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Nacey, Susan
2023. Systematic Metaphors in Norwegian Doctoral Dissertation Acknowledgements. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 67:5 ► pp. 679 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez-Moya, Alfonso
2021. From the uncertainty of violence to life after abuse: Discursive transitions among female survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in online contexts. Research in Corpus Linguistics 9:2 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 september 2023. 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.