![]() When individuals adopt the line of reasoning as suggested by the metaphorical frame, this is considered evidence for theories like conceptual metaphor theory because these results demonstrate that individuals indeed use metaphors as an important mode of reasoning (Lakoff & Johnson, Reference Lakoff and Johnson1980). Metaphors can fulfill these functions of framing by hiding and highlighting how the target domain of a metaphor (e.g., ideas) is similar to its source domain (e.g., food). Metaphorical framing constitutes the idea that metaphors fulfill one or more functions of framing as defined by Entman ( Reference Entman1993): to emphasize specific problems, causal relationships, moral evaluations, and/or solutions (Burgers, Konijn, & Steen, Reference Burgers, Konijn and Steen2016 Semino, Demjén, & Demmen, Reference Semino, Demjén and Demmen2018). ![]() Such studies typically focus on the effects of linguistic metaphors on individuals’ attitudes and behavior in the form of metaphorical frames. Many experimental studies have examined the hypothesis that people reason in conceptual metaphors. Given this hypothesis that people reason metaphorically, metaphors in language (e.g., “ digest information”, “ meaty book”, “ warmed-over theories”) are considered subsequent manifestations of these metaphors in thought. Consequently, conceptual metaphor theory posits that the use of metaphors is one of the most fundamental forms of reasoning (Lakoff & Johnson, Reference Lakoff and Johnson1980). Conceptual metaphors (e.g., ideas are food) thus facilitate the understanding of abstract concepts by connecting them to concepts that are, for instance, more familiar and meaningful to the individual. They argued that individuals think about abstract concepts (e.g., ideas) in terms of other, often more concrete concepts (e.g., food) to fully understand these abstract concepts. ![]() Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory was one of the first theories to propose a connection between metaphors in language and cognition. Conceptual metaphors are defined as clusters of cross-domain mappings in thought (Lakoff & Johnson, Reference Lakoff and Johnson1980). ![]() Linguistic metaphors are generally defined as cross-domain mappings in the meaning of words. We therefore argue that future research should more explicitly describe and justify which level of analysis is chosen to examine the nature and effects of metaphorical framing.Īn important debate in metaphor research deals with the relationship between linguistic and conceptual metaphors. Yet, these effects were larger for metaphorical-concepts frames. Results showed that, compared to non-metaphorical frames, both metaphorical-words and metaphorical-concepts frames positively influenced beliefs and attitudes. Given that patterns of metaphor usage differ across discourse domains, and that effects may differ across modalities and discourse domains, we focused on one mode of presentation and one discourse domain only: verbal metaphorical framing in political discourse. For this reason, we conducted a meta-analysis ( k = 91, N = 34,783) to compare the persuasive impact of both types of metaphorical frames. This means that these overviews included only experimental studies that looked at variations in individual words instead of at the broader logic of messages. Previous overviews of metaphorical-framing effects have mostly focused on metaphorical framing through words (metaphorical-words frames) rather than through concepts (metaphorical-concepts frames). Metaphorical frames can be identified by at least two levels of analysis: words vs. Conceptual metaphor theory and other important theories in metaphor research are often experimentally tested by studying the effects of metaphorical frames on individuals’ reasoning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |