Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:6 (2019) ► pp.848–869

“Brexit means…”

UK vs. continental online-media users and English-language metaphoric conceptualizations

| Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Brexit, i.e. the withdrawal of the uk from the eu, is an event, which, regardless of its course and destination, has had a lasting impact on international politics. This paper offers a cognitive linguistic perspective on Brexit and investigates its conceptual metaphorizations on the first days after the uk referendum. The paper compares data from uk and non-uk eu media. The perspective adopted is that of Socio-Cognitive Studies in combination with quantitative analysis. The findings suggest there are significant differences between uk source domains and continental eu ones, e.g. overall metaphor use throughout the period is more pronounced in the uk sub-dataset; in the uk sub-dataset, divorce metaphorizations characterize either a ‘break-up’ between ‘two Britains’ or an uk-eu ‘break-up’; journey, disaster and war are more frequently used in the uk, while mechanical failure is more prominent in the continental sub-dataset. Overall, a preference for inanimate source domains characterizes both sub-datasets.
Keywords: Brexit, conceptualization, metaphor, online media, uk media, non-uk eu media
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Political and media background
  • 3.Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) background
  • 4.Dataset
  • 5.Analytical procedures
  • 6.Data and discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
  • Internet sources
Published online: 29 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19005.tin
References (51)
References
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2016. “The Vocal Euro-outsider: The UK in a Two-speed Europe.” The Political Quarterly 87 (2): 238–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, Charlotte Galpin, and Ben Rosamond. 2017. “Performing Brexit: How a Post-Brexit World Is Imagined Outside the United Kingdom.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19 (3): 573–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexandre-Collier, Agnès. 2015. “Euroscepticism under Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron: From Theory to Practice”. Observatoire de la Société Britannique. [URL]. DOI logo
Black, Jeremy. 2019. Britain and Europe: A Short History. London: Hurst and Company.Google Scholar
Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review 112 (1): 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley. 2017. “Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote.” Parliamentary Affairs 70 (3): 439–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Beaugrande, Robert, and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Burca, Grainne. 2018. “How British was the Brexit vote?” In Brexit and Beyond, ed. by Benjamin Martill, and Uta Staiger, 46–54. London: UCL Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Data Set Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Đurović, Tatjana, and Nadežda Silaški. 2018. “The End of a Long and Fraught Marriage: Metaphorical Images Structuring the Brexit Discourse.” Metaphor and the Social World 8 (1): 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2008. “How Metaphors Create Categories – Quickly.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 67–84. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanhimäki, Jussi. 2016. “What Can History Teach Us about Brexit?” [URL]
Hansson, Sten. 2019. “Brexit and Blame Avoidance: Officeholders’ Discursive Strategies of Self-preservation.” In Discourses of Brexit, ed. by Veronika Koller, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer, 191–207. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalogeropoulos, Antonis, Richard Fletcher, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2019. “News Brand Attribution in Distributed Environments: Do People Know Where They Get Their News?” New Media and Society 21 (3): 583–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalogeropoulos, Antonis, Samuel Negredo, Ike Picone, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2017. “Who Shares and Comments on News?: A Cross-National Comparative Analysis of Online and Social Media Participation.” Social Media and Society, Oct-Dec: 1–12.Google Scholar
Koller, Veronika, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer. 2019. Discourses of Brexit. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2018. “Metaphor in Media Language and Cognition: A Perspective from Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. The Journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Warsaw: De Gruyter Open III (1): 124–141.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2019. “Brexit and the Imaginary of ‘Crisis’: A Discourse Conceptual Analysis of European News Media”. Critical Discourse Studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Neural Theory of Metaphor. DOI logo
. 2014. “SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President.” [URL]
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martill, Benjamin, and Uta Staiger. 2018. Brexit and Beyond. London: UCL Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morozova, Olena. 2017. “Monomodal and Multimodal Instantiations of Conceptual Metaphors of Brexit.” Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. The Journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open II (2): 250–283.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 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
. 2017. “Truths, Lies and Figurative Scenarios – Metaphors at the Heart of Brexit.” Journal of Language and Politics 16 (5): 641–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse.” Mythos-Magazin: Politisches Framing 11. [URL]
Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, et al. 2017. Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 2008. “Metaphors of Social Order.” In Political Language and Metaphor, ed. by Terrell F. Carver, and Jernej Pikalo, 57–93. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 41: 328–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “Cognitive Reference Points.” Cognitive Psychology 71: 532–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2011. Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Tryntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. “Dataset-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy.” In Dataset-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries, 1–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tincheva, Nelly. 2019. “Conceptualizing Brexit: First Post-referendum Days’ Dynamics in Metaphorization.” International Journal of Language and Culture 6 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jorg Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2017. Socio-Cognitive Discourse Studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse, ed. by John Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, 26–44. Routledge: New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walter, Jochen, and Jan Helmig. 2008. “Discursive Metaphor Analysis: (De)construction(s) of Europe.” In Political Language and Metaphor, ed. by Terrell F. Carver, and Jernej Pikalo, 119–131. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Werth, Paul. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2014. “Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)”. In International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy, 275–287. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2016. “We Have the Character of an Island Nation: A Discourse-historical Analysis of David Cameron’s “Bloomberg Speech” on the European Union.” [URL]
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer, eds. 2015. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (3rd edn.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zappettini, Franco. 2018. “Europe at a Critical Legitimacy Juncture: Which People, Whose Values?” [URL]
Zappettini, Franco, and Michał Krzyżanowski. 2019. “The Critical Juncture of Brexit in Media and Political Discourses: From National-populist Imaginary to Cross-national Social and Political Crisis”. Critical Discourse Studies, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Internet sources
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

McCormick, Lisa
2020. Marking time in lockdown: heroization and ritualization in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 8:3 ► pp. 324 ff. DOI logo
Tincheva, Nelly
2020. Good Brexit, Bad Brexit: Evaluation Through Metaphoric Conceptualizations in British Media. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 10 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 2024. 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.