Article published in:
Metaphor in Religion and Spirituality
Edited by Stephen Pihlaja
[Metaphor and the Social World 7:1] 2017
► pp. 47–65

An investigation of the blocking and development of empathy in discussions between Muslim and Christian believers

| Hokkaido University, Japan
This article investigates examples of the blocking or development of empathy in videoed discussions between three pairs of conservative Muslim and Christian believers. The analysis focusses on the use of figurative language in the discussions with the aim of identifying examples of metaphor appropriation, and reveals three types of shared metaphor usage. The first is shared language based on the overlapping semantic fields that Christians and Muslims draw on in order to describe their experience. The second consists of appropriation that appears to contribute to the blocking of empathy through the imposition of narratives with specific assumptions. The third involves discourse convergence and empathy development, demonstrating the potential of this type of discourse format to promote bridge building between particular individuals at specific moments in a discourse.
Keywords: Discourse, metaphor, Muslim, Christian, empathy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interacting, perspective taking, and metaphor usage
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Examples of shared language
    • 4.2Appropriating metaphors and imposing personal stories in order to challenge perspectives
    • 4.3Empathy in statements that adopt the perspective of the Other
    • 4.4Moments of perspective alignment
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.7.1.04ric
References
Bhaktin, M. M.
(2006) The problem of speech genres. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader, 2nd Edition (pp. 98–107). Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2011) Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. New York: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
(2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (eds.) Metaphor analysis: Research practices in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Equinox. pp. 77–96.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Low, G. D., & Maslen, R.
(2010) Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practices in applied linguistics, social sciences, and the humanities (pp. 116–146). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J. & Semino, E.
(2013) Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(2003) Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gavins, J.
(2007) Text world theory: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Jr. R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. L.
(2000) Empathy and moral development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
(2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Macmillan Dictionary
(2009–2015) http://​www​.macmillandictionary​.com Macmillan Publishers Limited (accessed February 2015).
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naik, Z.
(2008) Concept of God in major religions. Birmingham: Islamic Dawah Centre International.Google Scholar
Neary, C.
(2017) “Truth is like a vast tree”: metaphor use in Gandhi’s autobiographical narration. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(1), 106–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2006) Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pihlaja, S.
(2014) Antagonism on YouTube. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Richardson, P.
(2015) Violence, belief, and viewpoint: A cognitive poetic analysis of fictional narratives relating to radical Islam. Media and Communication Studies (Hokkaido University), 681, 23–56.Google Scholar
(2013) A closer walk: A cognitive linguistic study of movement and proximity metaphors and their impact on certainty in Muslim and Christian language. University of Birmingham Ethesis. http://​etheses​.bham​.ac​.uk​/4691​/1​/Richardson13PhD​.pdf
(2012) A closer walk: A study of the interaction between metaphors related to movement and proximity and presuppositions about the reality of belief in Christian and Muslim testimonials. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(2), 233–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(2004) An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 35–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J.
(2013) Metaphor, genre and recontexualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, P.
(2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tausch, N. & Hewstone, M.
(2013) Intergroup contact. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A.
(2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid & Hooshang Khoshsima
2021. Homo-schematic Metaphors: A Study of Metaphor Comprehension in Three Different Priming Conditions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:4 ► pp. 923 ff. Crossref logo
RICHARDSON, PETER & CHARLES M. MUELLER
2019. Moving yet being still: exploring source domain reversal and force in explanations of enlightenment. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 310 ff. Crossref logo
Richardson, Peter & Charles M. Mueller
2022. Contested paths. Metaphor and the Social World 12:1 ► pp. 138 ff. Crossref logo
Richardson, Peter & Miori Nagashima
2018. Perceptions of danger and co-occurring metaphors in Buddhist dhamma talks and Christian sermons. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:1 ► pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. 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.