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

Frame exploitation at its worst

The way Egyptian military doctors make sense of illness and cure

 | Siedlce University
Although essential to science and health communication, metaphors can backfire. At this point, any attempt on the part of the speaker to clarify his/her intentions would ultimately prove futile because the mental situation models of speakers and their recipients may not be the same. A debate over the meaning of a metaphor, the variations in its interpretation, or constant negotiation between the interactants poses a substantial challenge to intention-based theories of implicature. A corpus analysis of the “kofta” analogy used by a senior Egyptian army doctor during a February 2014 televised news conference to announce cures for AIDS and hepatitis C and the ensuing impasse over its appropriateness shows that a metaphor designed to publicly communicate science, to confront and shatter the stereotypical image of scientists as dull and stilted people, to persuade citizens to accept the claims as fact, or to hide the speaker’s own scientific ignorance may be sarcastically repeated, extended, and elaborated (“overexploited”) by the target audience (“overdone metaphors”). The doctor or his use of the metaphor of “I give [the virus] back as a kebab skewer for the patient to feed on” has been condemned as “too lower class”. Various forms of metaphor denial and resistance are examined. The article, analyzing thousands of YouTube comments on the news conference video, provides valuable insights for interpreting tropes and has important implications both for science and health communicators and socio-cognitive pragmaticists.
Keywords: frame denial and resistance, metaphors in medicine, science communication, diverging interpretations of metaphor, sarcastic extensions and elaborations, frame flouting and overexploitation, humor, social media and corpus tools
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metaphor: From “poverty of mapping” to overexploitation
  • 3.Corpus and methodology
  • 4.The “kofta” news conference controversy
    • 4.1Implications
    • 4.2Summary of distinctions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 17 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00203.abd
References (58)
References
Abd-El-Jawad, H. R. (1987). Cross-dialectal variation in Arabic: Competing prestigious forms. Language in Society, 16 (3), 359–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abdel-Raheem, A. (2022). Metaphorical creativity contributing to multimodal impoliteness in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19 (1), 35-70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Misri, I. (1963). TaHariir ʿit-TaHabiir (H. M. Sharaf, Ed.). Al-Majlis al-Aʿlā lil-Shuʾūn alIslāmiyyah.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2005, July). AntConc: design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. In IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 729–737). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. (2015). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 91–110). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2022). Multimodality, where next?–Some meta-methodological considerations. Multimodality & Society, 2 (1), 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L. (2013). The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clevenger, T., & Edwards, R. (1988). Semantic distance as a predictor of metaphor selection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17 1, 211–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. (2005). Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129–144). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Crosson, B., Radonovich, K., Sadek, J. R., Gökçay, D., Bauer, R. M., Fischler, I. S., Cato, M. A., Maron, L., Auerbach, E. J., Browd, S. R., & Briggs, R. W. (1999). Left-hemisphere processing of emotional connotation during word generation. NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 10 (12), 2449–2455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1987). Concepts of language development: A realistic perspective. In W. Yule, & M. Butter (Eds.), Language development and disorders (pp. 42–52). London: Mac Keith Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23 1, 225–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elder, C., & Haugh, M. (2023). Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 218 1, 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2013). The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse. In A. Fetzer (Ed.), The pragmatics of political discourse: Explorations across cultures (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Siman, J. (2021). How we resist metaphors. Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 670–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gingell, J. (2015, August 14). Economics jargon promotes a deficit in understanding. The Guardian. [URL]
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, R. (2014, October 10). Science communication: could you explain it to your granny? The Guardian. [URL]
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the “uncovered meat” sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5 (2), 201–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hülzer-Vogt, H. (1991). Facets of verbal conflicts in communication. In S. Stati, E. Weigand, & F. Hundsnurscher (Eds.), Dialoganalyse III, Teil 1: Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung, Bologna 1990 (pp. 135–148). Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N. (2023). Pictorial irony and sarcasm. In R. W. Gibbs & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of irony and thought (pp. 402–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., P. Rychlý, P. Smrž, & D. Tugwell. (2004). The Sketch Engine. In Williams, G. & S. Vessier (Eds.). Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX (pp. 105–116). Lorient: Université De Bretagne Sud..Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 1, 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22 (4), 293–330. [URL]
Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lockyer, S., & Myers, L. (2011). “It’s about expecting the unexpected”: Live stand-up comedy from the audiences’ perspective. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 8 1, 165–188.Google Scholar
Lozano-Palacios, I., & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. (2022). Modeling irony. A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J. K., Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2006). The roles of politeness and humor in the asymmetry of affect in verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 41 (1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metz, C. (1980). Connotation reconsidered. Discourse, 2 1, 18–31. [URL]
Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 109 1, 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). “World-beating” pandemic responses: Ironical, sarcastic, and satirical use of war and competition metaphors in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol, 37 (2), 76–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nashef, H. A. M. (2013). أهلا, hello and bonjour: a postcolonial analysis of Arab media’s use of code switching and mixing and its ramification on the identity of the self in the Arab world, International Journal of Multilingualism, 10 (3), 313–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, E. (2019). Enjoy it again: Repeat experiences are less repetitive than people think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116 (4), 519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reagle, J. M. (2015). Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Massachusetts: Mit Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1 (18), 3–9.Google Scholar
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28 (3), 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (1992). Denying racism: Elite discourse and racism. Discourse and Society, 3 (1), 87–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Social movement discourse: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2023). Principles of new science: Dialogue between science and philosophy. Language and Dialogue, 13 (1), 26–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87 (1–2), 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2016). Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar