Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

The COVID-19 pandemic and changing meanings of flatten the curve

A cognitive semantic approach

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
ORCID logo | Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
This paper conducts a comparative analysis of the meanings of the phrase flatten the curve before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from two corpora, the iWeb Corpus and the Coronavirus Corpus, it focuses on semantic frames (Fillmore, 1985) and frame metonymy (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014). The investigation reveals that the construal of the phrase after the outbreak of COVID-19 requires the invocation of both bell curve and pandemic frames; that is, without the pandemic frame, the phrase would remain in the domain of statistics and refer to a change in a graph. The data are sorted into four semantic categories based on the context in which they appear (epidemiological/non-epidemiological) and on the effect they pursue regarding the flattening-the-curve scenario (rigorous/non-rigorous). The phrase’s polysemy is explained by the part of the process for effect of the process metonymy. The flatter curve, as a salient part of a scenario, serves to refer to one of the scenario’s effects. The analysis also observes a correlation between the real-world experience of the pandemic and the actual frequency of flatten the curve in that the ratio of each semantic category reflects the contemporaneous real-world significance of reducing the rate of increase of new infections.
Keywords: flatten the curve, COVID-19, semantic extension, polysemy, semantic frames, frame metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminaries
    • 2.1Phenomenon in focus: The flatten-the-curve strategy
      • 2.1.1The purpose of the strategy
      • 2.1.2US COVID-19 phases
    • 2.2Theoretical background: Cognitive linguistic approaches
      • 2.2.1Frame semantics
      • 2.2.2Conceptual metonymy
  • 3.Data collection
    • 3.1Why the iWeb Corpus and the Coronavirus Corpus?
    • 3.2The iWeb Corpus data
    • 3.3The Coronavirus Corpus data
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.1 Flatten the Curve: Before the pandemic
    • 4.2 Flatten the Curve: During the pandemic
      • 4.2.1The Epidemiological-Rigorous category
      • 4.2.2The Epidemiological-Non-Rigorous category
      • 4.2.3The Non-Epidemiological-Rigorous category
      • 4.2.4The Non-Epidemiological-Non-Rigorous category
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The semantic network of Flatten the Curve
    • 5.2Correlation with US COVID-19 phases
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00158.kan
References (27)
References
Asif, M., Zhiyong, D., Iram, A., & Nisar, M. (2021). Linguistic analysis of neologism related to coronavirus. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 4 (1), 100201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2007). Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance: Community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the United States – Centers early, targeted, layered use of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Retrieved from [URL] (Accessed on March 14 2022).
Charteris-Black, J. (2021). Metaphors of coronavirus: Invisible enemy or zombie apocalypse? Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2009). Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 161–181). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2014). Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
(1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2006[1982]). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenson, H. B. (2020). How did ‘flatten the curve’ become ‘flatten the economy?’: A perspective from the United States of America. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51 1, 102165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006[1993]). Chapter 6: Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 185–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lei, S., Yang, R., & Huang, C.-R. (2021). Emergent neologism: A study of an emerging meaning with competing forms based on the first six months of COVID-19. Lingua, 258 1, 103095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Páez, D., & Pérez, J. A. (2020). Social representations of COVID-19. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35 (3), 600–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pannain, R., & di Pace, L. (2022). Metonymy and the polysemy of Covid in Italian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (1), 231–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a consensus view (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Diez Velasco, O. J. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A. (2014). Frames of understanding in text and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar