Metaphorical profile of distress in English media discourse

Open access

Abstract

The current research is directed towards the transition of distress studies in the English speaking culture from the prototype towards the conceptual metaphor approach. It enables the enlightenment of mental images, which underlie distress language usage in modern mass communication. The analysis involves identification of conceptual distress metaphors and metonymies within the image-schematic structure. The study includes a cognitive semantic analysis of linguistic units of the distress lexicon retrieved from the GloWbE, BNC, COCA, English newspapers and media platforms. Figurative language reveals conventional beliefs about distress represented in English media discourse, such as strong associations of emotion with darkness and coldness. Metaphorical mappings contain views about the reasons for distress experience which lie in the loss of balance or inner equilibrium, loss of control, and convictions about the reaction characterizing a person as being weak and brittle. The findings of data analysis are summed up in a metaphorical profile of distress (MPD) which discloses the behavioural patterns (communicative behaviour, adequacy/inadequacy of behaviour, ability to socialize) and physical effects including health issues.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BARCELONA A. 1986. On the concept of depression in American English: A cognitive approach. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses no. 12 pp. 7-35.

  • CASASANTO D. and DIJKSTRA K. 2010. Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition vol. 115 no. 1 pp. 179-185.

  • CROFT W. 2003. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 161-207.

  • DANCYGIER B. and SWEETSER E. 2014. Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • DING F. 2012. The interaction between metaphor and metonymy in emotion category. In: Theory and practice in language studies. Finland: Academy Publisher vol. 2 no. 11 pp. 2384-2397.

  • DIRVEN R. 2003. Introduction. In: R. Dirven R. Pörings eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 1-41.

  • EKMAN P. 1973. Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York: Academic Press 273 p.

  • FORCEVILLE C. J. and RENCKENS T. 2013. The 'good is light' and 'bad is dark' metaphor in feature films. In: Metaphor and the social world. Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication (ACLC). Available at: http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/136781

  • GEERAERTS D. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 435-465.

  • GRADY J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: R. Gibbs and G. Steen eds. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam The Netherlands: John Benjamins pp. 79-100.

  • HAMPE B. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In: B. Hampe ed. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 1-12.

  • HANDL S. 2011. The conventionality of figurative language: A usage-based study. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

  • IZARD C. E. 1991. The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum.

  • JOHNSON M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • KING Ph. 2012. Metaphor and methodology for cross-cultural investigation of Hebrew emotions. Journal of Translation vol. 8 no. 1 pp. 9-24.

  • KRZESZOWSKI T. 1993. The axiological parameter in preconceptual image schemata. In: R. Geiger and B. Rudzka-Ostyn eds. Conceptualizations and mental processing in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 307-329.

  • KӦVECSES Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language culture and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • KӦVECSES Z. 2002. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • KӦVECSES Z. PALMER G. B. DIRVEN R. 2003. Language and emotion: The interplay of conceptualization with physiology and culture. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 133-161.

  • LAKOFF G. and JOHNSON M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • LAKOFF G. and TURNER M. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • LAKOFF G. 1987. Women fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • LAKOFF G. 1992. Contemporary theory of metaphor. Available at: http://comphacker.org/comp/engl338/files/2014/02/A9R913D.pdf

  • LUTZ C. A. 1988. Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • MINSKY M. 2006. The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking artificial intelligence and the future of the human mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  • OGARKOVA A. SORIANO C. 2015. Metaphorical profiles of ANGER nouns in three languages: Converging evidence with cross-cultural emotion psychology. Paper presented at Bi-Annual Conference of the International Society for Research on Emotion. Geneve Switzerland July 8-10.

  • OATLEY K. JOHNSON-LAIRD P. N. 2013. Cognitive approaches to emotions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences vol.18 no.3 pp.1-7. Available at: http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2014tics-emotions.pdf

  • ORTONY A. CLORE G. L. COLLINS A. 1988. The cognitive structure of emotions. UK Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • RADDEN G. 2000. How metonymic are metaphors? In: A. Barcelona ed. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 93-108.

  • SELYE H. 1974. Stress without distress. Philadelphia; New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1st edition.

  • STEFANOWITSCH A. 2004. HAPPINESS in English and German: A metaphorical-pattern analysis. In: M. Archad and S. Kemmer eds. Language culture and mind. Stanford: University of Stanford pp. 137-49.

  • STOTT R. MANSELL W. SALKOVSKIS P. LAVENDER A. CARTWRIGHT-HATTON S. 2010. Oxford guide to metaphors in CBT: Building cognitive bridges (Oxford guides to cognitive behavioural therapy). Oxford University Press 1st edition.

  • SWALLOW D. 20 February 2010. Meaning of colours across cultures. In: Cross-cultural communication cross-cultural differences general other interesting stuff. Available at: http://www.deborahswallow.com/2010/02/20/meaning-of-colours-acrosscultures/

  • TALMY L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring system. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press vol. 1. Available at: http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/TCS.html

  • TOMKINS S. S. 1963. Affect imagery consciousness: Vol. II. The negative affects. New York: Springer.

  • TOMKINS S. S. 1984. Affect theory. In: K. R. Scherer and P. Ekman eds. Approaches to emotion. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum pp. 163-195.

  • UNGERER F. SCHMID H.J. 2006. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. New York: Pearson Education.

  • WIERZBICKA A. 1999. Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. UK Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 453 154 6
PDF Downloads 277 103 11