Metaphors Used in Television Debates on the EU Referendum: a Corpus-Based Approach to Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Metaphors used in Television Debates on the EU Referendum: A Corpus-Based Approach to Conceptual Metaphor Theory

DIPLOMARBEIT

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie

eingereicht bei

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gabriella Mazzon

Institut für Anglistik

Philologisch-Kulturwissenschaftliche Fakultät

der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck

von

Carina Rützler

01315809

Dorf 1g, 6210 Wiesing

Innsbruck, Dezember 2017

Danksagung

Weder diese Diplomarbeit noch mein gesamtes Studium wären ohne die Hilfe meiner Eltern, Edith und Gebhard, möglich gewesen. Deshalb möchte ich mich zu allererst für ihre unaufhörliche Unterstützung, sowohl in finanzieller als auch in jeder anderen Hinsicht, bedanken!

Des Weiteren richtet sich mein Dank an alle Freunde und Kollegen, die ihre Erfahrungen, ihre Mitschriften und Materialien mit mir geteilt haben. Allen voran hat meine Freundin Carolin mir von der ersten Woche des Studiums an geholfen, wofür ich ihr sehr dankbar bin!

Zu guter Letzt gebührt Frau Professor Gabriella Mazzon, die mein Interesse an Linguistik geweckt und meine Diplomarbeit betreut hat, besonderer Dank. Ihre Ratschläge in der Anfangsphase des Schreibens und ihr konstruktives Feedback zu meinem ersten Entwurf waren von unschätzbarem Wert.

Abstract

Title of Thesis: Metaphors used in Television Debates on the EU Referendum: A Corpus-Based Approach to Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Thesis Directed by: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gabriella Mazzon Department of English University of Innsbruck

This thesis is based on conceptual metaphor theory as first introduced by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), which considers metaphor to play an essential role in language and human cognition. After offering an overview of the framework of the theory in the first part of the thesis, a study on the metaphors used in the UK referendum on the EU membership on 23 June 2016 is conducted. For this purpose, nine television debates broadcasted before the final election were transcribed and systematically searched. The findings and implications of this study are discussed in the second part of the thesis.

The didactic part of the thesis explores the uses of conceptual metaphor for the second language classroom. In order to put the theory into practice, useful teaching materials are offered. An exemplary lesson plan that can help students develop their metaphorical competence is presented. In addition, the possibility of using conceptual metaphor as an organizing tool to expand vocabulary is explored. Some exercises that can be integrated continuously into second language teaching are included.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory ...... 3

2.1. Traditional View of Metaphor ...... 3

2.2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory ...... 6

2.3. Mappings ...... 12

2.4. Neural Theory of Language ...... 16

2.5. Kinds of Metaphor ...... 20

2.6. Metonymy ...... 22

2.7. Identification of Linguistic and Conceptual Metaphor ...... 23

3. Metaphors Used in Television Debates on the Brexit ...... 30

3.1. Methodology ...... 30

3.2. Remain and Leave Campaign: Project Fears vs. Gambling ...... 42

3.3. Dysfunctional Family Ties with the European Union...... 48

3.4. Immigration ...... 50

3.5. The European Union as a Container ...... 55

3.6.Taking back Control ...... 60

3.7. The European Union as a Destructive Force...... 67

3.8. Metonymies ...... 72

4. Metaphors Used in Second Language Learning ...... 74

4.1. Metaphorical Competence ...... 74 4.1.1. Lesson Plan ...... 76 4.1.2. Differentiating between Literal and Metaphorical Use ...... 81 4.1.3. Newspaper Articles ...... 82 4.1.4. Graphical Organizer ...... 83 4.1.5. Possible Solution ...... 84

4.2. Organizing Lexis ...... 85 4.2.1. Idioms ...... 88 4.2.2. Phrasal Verbs ...... 95 4.2.3. Evaluation Sheet...... 97

5. Conclusion ...... 98

Bibliography ...... 100

Primary Sources ...... 101

Secondary Sources ...... 102

Eidesstattliche Erklärung ...... 119

. 1. Introduction

Ever since the publication of their seminal study Metaphors we Live By in 1980, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have revolutionised the study of metaphor. By challenging centuries-old Western assumptions about human cognition and language, the authors have proven that metaphor is not a rare poetic embellishment, but rather a basic cognitive tool to understand the world around us. In the past four decades, evidence from different fields of research with different methodologies has confirmed the view that metaphor plays an essential role in abstract thought and symbolic expression. The metaphorical language that we use effortlessly and frequently in our everyday discourse is merely a linguistic manifestations of conceptual metaphors shaping the human mind. Metaphor, therefore, not only impacts our language use, but many cultural institutions such as politics, science, art and sports. This is the reason why conceptual metaphor theory has found such a wide range of application from literary analysis, to psychology, mathematics, cognitive linguistics, and, most prominently, law, politics and social issues. George Lakoff played a pioneering role in employing metaphor theory in order to uncover the means by which the Bush administration justified the Gulf war (1991), analyse the differences between the Conservative and the Progressive party in American politics (1996, 2002) and, in his most recent work, to explain the logic behind the election of US president Donald Trump. The following Diploma thesis applies conceptual metaphor theory to the political discourse in the lead-up to the so-called Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016, which resulted in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. Firstly, the research on and the evidence for conceptual metaphor theory, as well as the way metaphors function will be discussed. In order to illustrate the theory, examples from the television programme “BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate”, which aired on the 21 June 2016 from eight to ten p.m., will be included. Since the debate was broadcasted on the night before the vote, it is assumed that many of the metaphors used in the preceding campaign were collected and employed in this final appeal to voters. Therefore, it is accepted as a suitable starting point for further analysis. In addition, an appropriate method for

1 identifying metaphorically used words in real discourse and identifying the underlying conceptual metaphors is introduced. For the second part of the thesis, a corpus of transcripts from nine television debates on the EU referendum was compiled. All of them where broadcasted by leading television channels in the month of June preceding the election. The “BBC Great Debate” also served as a pilot study for the second part of the thesis. Five relevant target domains were identified in this initial analysis and later searched in the entire corpus: LEAVE and REMAIN CAMPAIGN, THE EUROPEAN UNION, IMMIGRATION and CONTROL. Consequently, the results of the study and possible implications of the metaphors used are discussed. The metaphorical expressions belonging to these target domains are viewed as indicative of a larger principle that structures our understanding of the political argument in question. Last but not least, research in the past decades suggests that conceptual metaphor can contribute in important ways to second language learning. Since metaphor plays such a fundamental role in human thought, the scope of possible uses for the language classroom is extremely wide. In this thesis, the focus is set on metaphorical competence and conceptual metaphor as an organizing principle for vocabulary learning. Although no precise definition has been agreed on so far, metaphorical competence broadly refers to a language user’s ability to recognize, interpret and actively produce metaphors. In order to develop this competence, a detailed lesson plan is included in the thesis. Secondly, two exercises that make use of metaphor as an organizing tool are presented.

2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory

2.1. Traditional View of Metaphor

Traditionally, metaphor was regarded as a mere linguistic trope used to embellish poetic texts and achieve the greatest possible effect on the reader. These assumptions can already be found in Aristotle: “The greatest thing by far is to have command of metaphor. This alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius” (Poetics, III, 12). Such a view explains why metaphor analysis formerly centred only on highly poetic instances of language use, such as Shakespeare’s acclaimed balcony scene where Juliet is compared to the sun (Romeo and Juliet, 2.2. 2-7):

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief, That thou, her maid, art far more fair than she. Be not her maid since she is envious.

The audience of this scene is lead to transfer the elements of radiant beauty and centrality from one domain, namely the sun, to another, namely Juliet. The metaphor is further elaborated by including the moon as the second celestial body, which is assigned human qualities when she compares her own beauty to the sun. Romeo’s metaphor, however, involves a relatively high degree of cognitive involvement from the audience since it is more elaborate than everyday speech. The exclusive focus on such instances of metaphorical use already presupposed that everyday conventional language is far removed from metaphor and only literal. In addition, only literal language can be contingently true or false since its meaning fits the world directly (Lakoff, 1993: 204). These assumptions give rise to the distrust some philosophers and empiricists of the Enlightenment bore towards figurative language in general. Thomas Hobbs, for instance, terms metaphors “ignes fatui” (Leviathan, pt. 1, chap. 5) and Samuel Parker believes they “impregnate the mind with nothing but Ayerie and Subventaneous Phantasmes” (Free and impartial Censure of the Platonick Philosophy).

In more recent work, Searle (1993) still treats metaphor as a challenge to communication and a deviation from ordinary literality when he attempts to paraphrase every instance of metaphor in order to approximate what the speakers mean. Comprehension of metaphorical expressions, therefore, requires the interlocutor to reject the initial, literal interpretation that occurs by default. Searle (1993: 103) suggests an algorithmic strategy that communication partners apply to process metaphorical language: “Where the utterance is defective if taken literally, look for an utterance meaning that differs from sentence meaning”. In his view, metaphors make it possible for speakers who utter a sentence of the form “S is P” to mean “S is R” (1993: 88). However, a theory of metaphor has to account for the relationship between P and R that constrains metaphorical usage overall. Searle offers a list of eight principles according to which P may often be said or believed to be R (as in, “Richard is a gorilla” for “Richard is mean, nasty and prone to violence)” or P may be R by definition (as in, “Sam is a giant” for “Sam is big”) and the like. Searle admits, however, that this list is not conclusive and that he can only offer “several [such principles] for a start” (1993: 104). As this “algorithmic process” (Lakoff, 1993: 205) seems to require much more effort than literal language, it is not at all clear why we resort to metaphor so frequently in our day to day discourse. Although Searle (1993: 88) is aware that metaphors “satisfy some semantic need” and the literal paraphrases are somehow inadequate or impossible to formulate in the first place, he still deems them necessary for metaphorical understanding. In addition, Searle’s theory predicts that processing of metaphorical language will take much longer than processing of literal language, which has turned out not to be the case (Lakoff, 2008: 17). Overall, the traditional theory of metaphor represented here by means of reference to some select linguists and philosophers assumes that metaphor is a purely linguistic and rare poetic phenomenon, which can be replaced with everyday literal language. The most comprehensive rejection of this view is Lakoff and Johnson’s study Metaphors we live by (1980). However, some important contributions were made to conceptual metaphor before its publication, as Jäkel (1999) convincingly presents. German philosophers and linguists, in particular, anticipated some of the most important claims that conceptual

4 metaphor theory has become famous for. Richards (1936), too, already contested the view that metaphors can only be invented by poets endowed with special genius to find similarities and are therefore truly exceptional. Instead, he deems metaphor to be pervasive in everyday discourse so that “we cannot get through three sentences of ordinary fluid discourse without it” (Richards, 1936: 92). Metaphor, according to Richard, creates new meaning through the interaction of two constituents. Black (1962: 46) termed these constituents tenor and vehicle. In a given metaphorical utterance, such as “Man is a wolf”, the speaker uses their knowledge about the tenor, “wolf” and then selects the appropriate information and projects it onto the vehicle, “man”. Thus, the speaker can derive at the conclusion that the wolfish attributes “malicious” and “aggressive” apply to humans, while inacceptable aspects like “having four legs”, “animal” and “living in packs” are ruled out. This view became known as the interaction view of metaphor (Black, 1955: 285), according to which metaphor is also a mechanism which significantly determines human thought overall. Black (1977: 454) regards metaphors as “cognitive instruments”. Therefore, the interaction view of metaphor foresees some essential aspects of conceptual metaphor theory, although Lakoff and Turner (1989: 131-133) are hesitant to admit this. The terminology of Richards is particularly fitting in respect of the etymology of the word metaphor. It derives from the Greek suffix μετα- and the verb φέρω which literally means “to transfer” or “to carry beyond” (Luke, 2004), hence the suitability of the term “vehicle”. Metaphor, thus, allows for a transfer of a word outside its usual context and an understanding of one concept in terms of another. This definition has remained the same since antiquity. All in all, it cannot be denied that at least the ubiquity and unidirectionality of metaphors, two important tenets of conceptual metaphor theory, were already noted by important predecessors (Jäkel 1997: 9). However, Lakoff and Johnson’s study (1980) has secured thought as the locus of metaphor, creating a new cognitive linguistic theory of metaphor, and has undeniably had the largest impact on the growing body of research. Their theory has found application in various fields of scholarship, science and, last but not least, in foreign language teaching, which will be discussed in the last section of

5 this thesis. The conceptual theory of metaphor will be explained in some detail in the following chapter.

2.2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory

As was shown in the previous chapter, some researchers anticipated the ideas that constitute conceptual metaphor theory. George Lakoff (1993: 203-4) himself, however, attributes the idea that metaphor should be part of everyday human thought to Michael J. Reddy’s essay The Conduit Metaphor, which first appeared in the first edition of Metaphor and Thought (Reddy, 1979: 284-310). This collection is particularly interesting in regard to the change metaphor theory has undergone since 1980 as the single essays contradict each other in how they view metaphor. Reddy argues that human language is understood to function like a conduit that transfers thoughts from one individual to another. Words are conceptualized as containers that speakers and writers of a language fill with meaning, which is extracted by listeners or readers after the transferring process. This understanding of communication is realized in metaphorical expressions, such as “getting one’s thoughts across”, “feelings coming through to someone” or “giving someone an idea of what you mean” (Reddy, 1979: 286). Reddy estimates that the conduit metaphor accounts for at least 70% of the expressions we use in our language about language. The analysis of this single example where an abstract concept, namely language, is understood in terms of more concrete concepts, namely as containers and a conduit led to the discovery of an enormous system of conceptual metaphors by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Lakoff and Johnson’s cognitive linguistic view of metaphor differs from the traditional perspective, firstly, in that metaphor is seen as integral part of conventional thought and language. As can be derived from the common-place examples given by Reddy (1979), metaphor is not just constrained to poetic language. Instead, metaphor is utilized without conscious effort to talk about everyday concepts such as time, life, death, or, as mentioned above, about language. In addition, we are only able to comprehend and appreciate elaborate forms of metaphor of the Shakespearean kind on the basis of these omnipresent metaphors each and every one of us uses. In More than Cool Reason Lakoff and

Turner (1989) trace an abundance of poetic metaphors back to these commonplace metaphors that are integral part of human thought and understanding. In an early study (Pollio, Barlow, Fine & Pollio, 1977), transcripts of psychotherapeutic interviews, various essays, and the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates were analysed and searched for metaphors. Novel metaphors, which are created by speakers spontaneously, were distinguished from frozen ones. The latter kind is hardly perceived as non-literal language use due to their high level of conventionality. The study counted 1.80 novel and 4.08 frozen metaphors per minute of discourse. Such numbers clearly indicate that metaphorical expressions figure prominently in everyday language use. Moreover, conceptual metaphor theory has found a metaphorical motivation behind everyday, conventional expressions and, thus, once and for all determined that literality is a fuzzy-edged category. There is no simple way to draw a boundary between literal and figurative language. None of the principles proposed in the classical approach, such as truth conditionality or compositionality, have proven to be adequate indicators of literality (Handl, 2011: 16-19). Secondly and perhaps more importantly, metaphor is no longer regarded “as a figure of speech, but a mode of thought” (Lakoff, 1993: 210). Hence, it is called conceptual metaphor. It accounts for a multitude of single metaphorical expressions through one general cognitive principle. The systematicity that Lakoff and Johnson were able to detect behind all these expressions is one of the most pervasive arguments for conceptual metaphor theory. Eve Sweetser (1990) pointed out that conceptual metaphor lies at the heart of historical semantic change, polysemy and pragmatic ambiguity. By factoring our perceptual system and the way we conceptualize our experience into semantic theory, she was able to demonstrate that different senses of one and the same morpheme are related. Change in meaning is therefore “natural and readily motivated” (Sweetser, 1990: 1-2). Thus, phrases like “Your claims are indefensible”, “He attacked every weak point in my argument” and “He demolished her argument” etc. acquire an additional, non-literal sense since they are all linguistic realizations of the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR (Lakoff & Johson, 1980: 4). Unlike theories of abstraction and homonymy which fail to explain the systematic

7 relationship between two senses of the same word, the metaphorical motivation observed in these examples can account for changes in meaning (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:106-7). Another example is the preposition “over”, which has more than 100 senses (Brugman & Lakoff, 1988). In addition to the senses that refer to specific physical schemata (e.g. “The bird flew over the house”), all of the senses that cover figurative schemas are motivated by two conceptual metaphors. The first one, CONTROL IS UP, is frequently used in the arguments of the Leave side. Like all the examples given in this first part of the thesis, Andrea Leadsom’s statement is taken from the transcript of the television programme “BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate”. Metaphorically used words or phrases in these quotes are indicated in italics.

(1) “We can take back control over our laws. We can take back control over our taxes. We can take back control over our borders, immigration policy and security.” (Andrea Leadsom, 00:04:04- 00:04:17)

These instances of use in Andrea Leadsom’s opening statement exhibit the metaphorical projection of knowledge from the physical domain to the more abstract, non-physical domain (Gibbs, 1994: 157). The second conceptual metaphor, CHOOSING IS TOUCHING, is manifested in Boris Johnson’s affirmation that Britain will be able to keep its economy stable without the European Union through new trade deals:

(2) “Let me give you an example: Because of the EU system, our entire trade negotiating policy is handed over to the EU Commission, where only 3.6 % of the officials actually come from our country”. (Boris Johnson, 00:32:36-00:32:57)

This metaphorical use of “over” entails that there is no physical contact with the object that Britain would like to control as long as they remain a member of the

European Union, namely their trade deals. Both conceptual metaphors explain why we can extend the meaning of a preposition to cover such a tremendous variety of senses. The cognitive linguistic view of metaphor holds that language is an indication of more general cognitive principles. Through an analysis of linguistic expressions, we can arrive at a deeper understanding of how humans create meaning and understand the world. “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another”, Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 5, emphasis added) summarize their understanding of conceptual metaphor. Reddy’s appendix can also be seen as an example of the form in which conceptual metaphors were standardized by Lakoff and Johnson (1980): TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN or, alternatively, TARGET DOMAIN AS SOURCE DOMAIN. As Kövecses (2010: 7) emphasizes, it is important to distinguish between the linguistic manifestation, i.e. ways of speaking, i.e. metaphorical expressions, and the organizational principles that they are based on, i.e. conceptual metaphors. In this thesis, conceptual metaphors, accordingly, will be spelled in small capitals while linguistic expressions will be written in quotation marks. The terms that are used in order to label the domains can sometimes be viewed as arbitrary or dependent on the context of the specific linguistic expressions that represent the metaphor. The metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, for instance, was sometimes been criticized as too harsh since ”war” heavily emphasizes the physical harm inflicted in a violent conflict. For this reason, some scholars find it more appropriate to label the metaphor ARGUMENT IS COMBAT. Similarly, Turner (1991) attempted to capture the meaning of the metaphor with his label RATIONAL ARGUMENT IS COMBAT BETWEEN INTENTIONAL AGENTS. Clausner and Croft (1997) remarked that this wording does not take irrational forms of debate into account, which, nevertheless, occur in our daily lives. Considering this discussion, it is important to note that the domain label chosen represents “an abstraction from specific instances of experience” (Dancygier & Sweetser 2014: 23). Thus, it is neither necessary nor possible to pinpoint the most precise lexical items to describe the source and target domains. As is the case for

9 categories, domains have no clear-cut boundaries. Instead, they are fuzzy, with a prototype at their core and a periphery further outside (Rosch 1977, Lakoff 1987). Moreover, some scholars have replaced the term “domain” with “frame”, as first introduced by Fillmore (1982). This exchange offers the advantage that evoking one aspect of the frame through the use of one expression also accesses the entire frame structure. As many types of physical combat and the actions typically associated with them are part of the same conceptual frame, the distinction between the labels “war” and “combat”, thus, loses much of its importance. As a basic tool of human cognition, metaphor allows us to use our most basic physical and social experience in order to comprehend other, more complex subjects. “Metaphors allow us to understand a relatively abstract or inherently unstructured subject matter in terms of a more concrete, or at least more highly structured subject matter”, as Lakoff states (1993: 145). Therefore we find that the most common source domains include the human body and its condition (health and illness), animals, plants, buildings and constructions, warmth and cold, light and darkness etc. These basic concepts of our understanding are the building blocks of how we metaphorically make sense of experiences such as emotions, psychological states and events in general, social groups, personal development and events (Kövecses, 2010: 27). We can see this general direction of conceptual metaphor to conceptualize something abstract via something more concrete in the MP’s, Sarah Wollaston’s, claim:

(3) “I've listened to the evidence. It's clear that our NHS, health research will be hit if we leave. There will be less money for those services and it [Brexit] will hit the workforce. It will hit our leadership role in research and development and cooperation with our European partners. There will be a very serious Brexit penalty for the NHS. Make no mistake”. (Sarah Wollaston, 37:29-17:37)

Sarah Wollaston conceptualizes the impact that the Brexit would have on the economy in terms of a physical force and, consequently, repeatedly uses the word “hit” to express her ideas. Justin King, former Sainsbury’s Chief Executive,

10 likewise, uses the words “damage”, “hurt” and “harm” in order to represent the effect of the predicted economic recession on British society as a physical force (00:36:41-00:37:07). Since our experience with physical forces is delineated in a much clearer way, we metaphorically understand the more abstract factors influencing the economy in these terms. Another important difference from a traditional perspective of metaphor derives from the question how metaphor production is constrained. After all, no theory of metaphor can argue that any target domain can aptly be talked about in terms of any source domain. In the traditional view of metaphor, the possibility whether we can speak about something in metaphorical terms is constrained by the similarity between two concepts. If there is no apparent similarity we cannot form a corresponding metaphorical expression. It is important to note that these similarities are thought of as inherent properties of the entities in question. While Lakoff and Johnson (1980) agree with this proposal in so far as the real world entities constrain our conceptual system, they challenge comparison theory, arguing that these similarities are not objective, but experiential. In addition to the entities in the real world, our experience of them determines which properties and similarities we perceive in them. For this reason, they focus their attention not on inherent properties but on “correlations” within our experience and “perceived structural similarity” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 154-155). We can find such a correlation in Boris Johnson’s statement in response to the question how the United Kingdom’s economy would be affected if it were to leave the European Union: “It would be a fine thing if, as Lord Rose said, people on low incomes got a pay rise as a result of us taking back control of our country and our system” (00:19:54-00:20:01). Here, Boris Johnson makes use of the conceptual metaphor MORE IS UP and its counterpart LESS IS DOWN since he predicts that the currently “low” wages will be “higher” as a result of the country leaving the European Union. The metaphors are grounded in the co-occurrence of adding more of a substance to a container and the level of the substance rising, but this does not mean that there is a similarity between the two domains. In other words, there is a correlation in our everyday experience of quantity and verticality (Kövecses, 2010: 80).

We can find a perceived structural similarity, on the other hand, between life and gambling in the following utterances:

(4) “Even those who want us to leave admit it’s a big gamble”. (Sadiq Khan, 00:05:47-00:05:49) (5) “We cannot afford this gamble with our jobs, our wages, our livelihoods and our rights”. (Frances O’Grady, 00:14:36 – 00:14:47) (6) “That’s a big hit and we cannot afford it. Don’t take the risk”. (Frances O’Grady, 00:16:53-00:17:01)

As Lakoff and Johnson argue, there is no experiential correspondence whatsoever between human life and gambling games (1980: 155). We simply experience one conceptual domain, i.e. life, as resembling another one, i.e. a gambling game. The more or less positive choices we make in life are seen as equivalents of winning and losing. The perceived similarity leads to the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME, which is in turn realized linguistically in the statements by the politicians on the Remain side.

2.3. Mappings

In order to explain how conceptual metaphors work exactly, Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 246) introduce the term mappings. Mappings are the conceptual correspondences that allow us to talk about a concept from a domain A in terms of a concept from a domain B. Knowing a metaphor means knowing the systematic mappings between the source and the target although this knowledge is largely unconscious. When we take the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY, we can understand it as a set of metaphorical mappings between elements associated with journeys and elements associated with life that are seen to correspond to the former. Accordingly, the individuals in life are conceptualized as travellers, our goals in life as destinations in the journey and the surface of the road as the degree of hardship. The direction of these mappings always goes from the more concrete to the more abstract and is typically not reversible. Unidirectionality is a natural

12 feature of conceptual metaphor since we cannot attempt to comprehend the more abstract in terms of the more concrete:

Source: JOURNEY Target: LIFE journey → events in life travellers → individuals destinations → achievements in life different roads → different choices in life surface of the road → degree of hardship weather conditions → also: degree of hardship end of the road → death

These are the metaphorical mappings that allow us to interpret utterances, such as “Michael Gove says it will mean inevitably bumps in the road” in an appropriate way (Ruth Davidson, 00:17:58-00:18:01). The unevenness of the road is mapped onto the target domain and metaphorically understood as referring to the future of Great Britain. Thus, “bumps in the road” refer to the loss of jobs, lower wages and economic difficulty in general. The same mappings are at work when we understand the question “When it comes to economy, which is the best path for Britain?” (BBC presenter, 00:08:18-00:08:22) and the declaration “The EU has embarked on a relentless journey to create a European superstate” (David Dimbleby, 01:12:20-01:12:29). Again, there is no inherent similarity between the elements in the source and the target domain. Rather, the source domain, i.e. JOURNEY, played a vital role in structuring the concept of LIFE we have by extracting these elements listed above. This explains why we find it difficult to think or speak of the abstract target concept without using any references to the source concept (Kövecses, 2010: 9). The nature of metaphorical mappings also implies that the standard formula TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN is a simplification: Not all of the aspects of the source domain are or can be mapped onto the target domain since the two are never identical. This selective mapping inevitably results in highlighting and hiding certain aspects of the target domain. As can be gleamed

13 from the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor, life is often regarded as a purposeful activity that leads the traveller to a definitive goal through their dedication and hard work. At the same time, this very metaphor hides the external influences that can impact us regardless of our decisions and best efforts. Moreover, different metaphors can highlight other aspects of the life domain, such as feelings of meaninglessness and futility in Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “Life is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (5.5.27). An argument can be understood metaphorically as a journey, a container, a building, or war, all of which lead to different perceptions concerning the function and rules of arguments (Kövecses, 2010: 135). The conduit metaphor, which we use extremely frequently to talk about communication as established above, entails that words and utterances have meaning of their own, independent of the speakers and the context. Neither the Remain nor the Leave side in the Brexit campaign want to lose control over Great Britain’s economic stability and its position in the global market. But while the Leave side’s slogan “Take back control” connotes Britain’s ability to make independent political decision on a national level in the future, the Remain side also warn of the loss of control that this very step brings in its train. As Sadiq Khan asks:

(7) “How is it having more control if you have less money in your pocket as Martin Lewis, the money expert, says? How is it more control if we have a recession as the Bank of England says. How is it more control if we are not investing in the schools and hospitals and GP practices, if Karim [member of the audience] can't get a job because local employers are suffering, or how is it control if it is double the immigration, […] more control if there are businesses from China, India and America choosing Germany and France over London. How is it more control if young people don't have the opportunities that we have? “ (Sadiq Khan, 00:59:35 – 01:00:17)

This exemplifies that loss of control is caused by completely different outcomes of the Brexit election depending on which speakers use it in which context. The

14 conduit metaphor, however, hides this important feature of language. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 12) point out, metaphorical concepts “provide us with a partial understanding of what communication, argument, and time and, in doing this, they hide other aspects of these concepts”. For this reason, it is possible to have a number of source domains for the same target, which are selected according to their appropriateness in a given context. In addition, the partial nature of metaphorical mappings also confronts us with a tricky problem. How are illegitimate mappings from the source to the target domain ruled out? One possibility which journeys offer, for instance, is going back and revisiting places we have travelled to at an earlier point in time via the same route. In life, however, it is simply not possible to return to the events once they have passed. This is one element that cannot be mapped from the source domain onto the domain of life. Another example frequently discussed in the literature, involves the CAUSATION IS TRANSFER metaphor (e.g. Kövecses 2010: 131). This conceptual metaphor is manifested linguistically in expressions such as “She gave him a headache”, where the headache is treated like a physical object. As a result, “She gave him a headache and he still has it” is a legitimate utterance in English. By contrast, this principle does not hold true for sentences where a kiss is conceptualized as a physical object: * ”She gave him a kiss and he still has it”. In order to solve this dilemma Lakoff (1993) first established the Invariance Principle which reads:

“Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive typology (that is the image-schema structure) of the source domain, in a way that is consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain”. (Lakoff, 1993: 215)

The nature of the target domain, then, overrides the initial assumptions that the metaphor leads us to make, namely that you still have an object after it has been given to you. In the first example, the state of the headache is compatible with the object transfer metaphor, whereas in the second example, the event of a kiss cannot endure and, therefore, chancels all the mappings that suggest a permanent possession after the action has been carried out.

Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 254) later called this principle of target domain overrides “unfortunate” and abandoned it in favour of a neural theory of language. According to this theory, metaphorical mappings are physically realized in the human brain through neural maps. The research that led to this viewpoint and the implications it has for metaphor theory overall will be discussed in the next section of the thesis.

2.4. Neural Theory of Language

In his 1997 dissertation, Joseph Grady introduced primary metaphors to the field. Focusing on less elaborate metaphors, he discovered that in the course of so- called primary scenes we learn early and far-reaching correlations in our day to day experience from the age of babyhood. A prime example of such a correlation is the physical warmth a baby experiences when it is being held by its mother, resulting in the conceptual metaphor AFFECTION IS WARMTH. Another basic example is the CONTROL IS UP metaphor, which emerges from the child’s early experience of being less powerful than its caregivers due to their increased height in relation to the child’s. In this way, primary metaphors connect our sensory- motor experience with our subjective judgement or assessment. Christopher Johnson (1999) similarly observed that children below the age of three seem to use the word “see” in its literal sense exclusively, that is in reference to vision, before they start to form metaphorical utterances, such as “I see what you mean”, where knowing is conceptualized as seeing (KNOWING IS SEEING metaphor). Johnson remarks that children are unlikely to distinguish between the domains of SEEING and KNOWING. As a result, conflation of the two domains presumably occurs at an early stage of a child’s development. By default, these correlations in experience are frequently repeated from a very early age and, thus, given special importance in the neural theory of language: primary metaphor and what Johnson has termed conflation make the Invariance principle obsolete since metaphors are learned when an experience from the target domain co-occurs with an experience from the source domain. If there were a contradiction, then the metaphor would never be learned in the first place (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003: 258).

Since all human beings are considered to share these primal experiences to some extent and, thus, activate the same set of domains repeatedly, it makes sense to consider some metaphors as universal. Through our natural, everyday experience in the world, these kinds of metaphors will be learned by anyone automatically. In fact, no language has been found so far, that negates the MORE IS UP metaphor. It seems that we simply do not conceptualize any form of increase with a downward motion, which is explained trough the primary scene of pouring a liquid into a container resulting in an increased level of the liquid. Yu (1998, 2009) demonstrates that conceptual metaphors for emotions in Chinese, such as HAPPY IS UP and SAD IS DOWN, seem to be the same as in English. Another instance of metaphorical usage that is relatively consistent across languages seems to be the distinction of LIGHT and DARK. On the other hand, it is clear that many metaphors, particularly those that structure the target concept in a more detailed way than MORE IS UP, can vary from culture to culture. Simultaneously, Srinivas Narayanan (1997) used computational techniques to represent metaphors as neuronal mappings. He then selected certain metaphorical statements from economic discourse such as “France fell into a recession and Germany pulled it out”. The inferences that come from the source domain of physical action (i.e. falling into a ditch and pulling someone out) were mapped onto the target domain of international economics. Both the enacted inferences that arise from the source domain about physical action and the structural inferences about international economics interact with the target domain and contribute to how it is understood. The neural theory of language argues that these conflations or correspondent experiences have a physical realization in the brain. During the primary scene discussed above when the mother holds her baby, two neuronal groups, such as the one responsible for the perception of temperature and the one for emotional concepts, fire together. Consequently, activation spreads along the synapses that connect them. When the two neural groups repeatedly fire at the same time and the activation reaches from one to the other, neural mapping circuits may be formed (Lakoff, 2008: 19). These are viewed as the neural basis

17 for metaphors that account for our conceptualization of AFFECTION AS PHYSICAL WARMTH. These primary metaphors are a normal result of associative learning in the brain. The Hebbian principle “Neurons that fire together wire together” (Hebb, 1949) predicts that repeated correlation in experience where two domains in the brain are co-active will lead to a connection of these areas. Since all primary metaphors arise from our physical experience, they are embodied. The combination of primary metaphors, in turn, provides the basis for complex metaphors. When more than one neural metaphor connection is active at the same time, they allow for us to understand much more abstract concepts. This is the mechanism used “for conceptualizing and discussing the full range of cultural and abstract concepts needed in human society” (Feldman, 2006: 203). Lera Boroditsky (2000) experimentally investigated whether we structure abstract domains in terms of metaphorical mappings from target domains that are ground in physical experience by reference to the event structure metaphor. In this case, the more concrete domain of SPACE gives structure to the more abstract domain of TIME. In English there are two spatial schemas according to which we conceptualize time. The first schema is ego-centric and visualizes the speaker as moving through time, as in “We are coming up on Christmas”. Other temporal statements, such as “Christmas is coming up”, presuppose that the speaker is stagnant while the events in time are visualized as moving towards the speaker (Gentner et al., 1999; McGlone & Harding, 1998). In Boroditsky’s experiment, participants were asked four true or false priming questions in line with the ego- moving schema or the time-moving schema respectively in a questionnaire. In the consequent target task they had to disambiguate the statement “Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward two days” and establish on which day of the week the meeting would consequently take place. Like Boroditsky had predicted, those participants who had accessed the ego-moving metaphor in answering the priming questions were more likely to see themselves as moving forward in time and decided that the meeting would take place on Friday. Participants who had accessed the time-moving metaphor in answering the priming questions on the other hand, were more likely to interpret “forward” as the motion of time and,

18 thus, name Monday as the meeting date. In total, almost 72% of the participants reacted in a prime-consistent manner. The control group that had not been given any prime questions was divided roughly equally between Friday and Monday which shows that neither of the spatial schemas for time is dominant in Western culture. Boroditsky’s results suggest that TIME and SPACE do, in fact, share a conceptual structure. Furthermore, the priming effect shown reinforces the assumption that source and target domain are connected. Cross-linguistic studies (Boroditsky, 2001) additionally confirm that our mental representations of abstract concepts are not independent of the linguistic metaphors we use for them. In another experiment (Boroditsky, 2000), participants were shown to be influenced by spatial primes when thinking about time, but to be unaffected by temporal primes when thinking about space. This finding suggests that spatial schemas are not necessary for us to think about the target domain of time. Gradually, continuous usage enables us to access the domain of time independently of spatial schemas. The metaphorical mappings that were set up between two domains are stored in the target domain when they are activated frequently enough. Highly conventional metaphors tend to acquire such stored meaning, that is, they are processed off-line in contrast to novel metaphors (Boroditsky, 2000: 4). Further evidence for the brain as locus of metaphor comes from brain imaging studies. In a recent overview, Benjamin Bergen (2012) gives some proof that metaphorical language may be processed through embodied simulation, just like literal language is simulated in the brain. This means that the same parts of the brain are active when we read about a concrete action as when we actually perform the action. One study (Wilson & Gibbs, 2007) showed, for instance, that participants were faster to grasp a metaphorical expression when it matched the action they had been performing beforehand. In other words, activation in the matching parts of the motor cortex may facilitate understanding metaphors precisely because they require embodied simulation. Not all studies replicated these results, but this may be due to the fact that embodied simulation is less detailed and requires less activity in the motor cortex of the brain than literal language (Bergen, 2012: 208).

All these experiments verify the predictions that the neural theory of metaphor makes. The physical reality of metaphor is of great relevance to our everyday thought in all aspects of life:

“You don’t have a choice as to whether to think metaphorically. Because metaphorical maps are part of our brains, we will think and speak metaphorically whether we want to or not. Since the mechanism of metaphor is largely unconscious, we will think and speak metaphorically whether we know it or not”. (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003: 257)

2.5. Kinds of Metaphor

Conceptual metaphors can vary in the degree to which they structure a given target. The division into ontological, orientational and structural metaphors was first introduced in Lakoff and Johnson’s classical work (1980) and although the authors call it “artificial” in the second edition (2003: 264), it has been kept up in the literature (e.g. Kövecses 2010, 37). The type that provides the richest knowledge structure for the target concept is the structural metaphor. One such instance is the conceptual metaphor TIME IS MOTION. We talk about physical objects, their motion and location when we want to refer to time. Expressions, like “the following week”, “time is flying by”, “the time has arrived”, “the time has gone” etc. are results of the spatialization of time in our conceptual system. Other examples for structural metaphors have been given above. The second type, ontological metaphor, allows us to reason about our experiences in terms of discreet entities, substances and containers. Experiences that have a very unclear structure or none receive a more sharply delineated status in this manner. The mind is commonly understood in terms of a brittle object when we say “her ego is very fragile or “you have to handle him with care since his wife’s death” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 28). In Kövecses’ words (2010: 39), “a ‘nonthing’ experience has received the status of a thing through an ontological metaphor”. The same process can be observed in personification which ascribes human nature to non-human entities.

The final type, orientational metaphor, provides the least amount of cognitive structuring by working with spatial orientations like up-down, front- back, on-off, centre-periphery and near-far. Our most fundamental concepts tend to be organized in these terms. In Western culture, the future is most frequently seen as being ahead of us. Upward orientation tends to be associated with positive evaluation while downward orientation tends to be associated with negative evaluation: HAPPINESS, HEALTH and LIFE are UP and HAVING CONTROL or FORCE is UP while their opposites are conceptualized as DOWN (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 15). The artificiality mentioned above arises since these types of metaphor overlap in important regards: all metaphors are structural in that they structure the target domain through conceptual mappings, all are ontological in that they create entities in the target domain and many are orientation in that they map image- schemas (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003: 264). Mappings are sometimes organized into hierarchical structures where the higher mappings inherit the structure of lower mappings. Primary metaphors are located at the first level in the hierarchy since they are grounded in “basic (…) metaphorical correspondences” (Grady, 1999: 81). The following is such a hierarchy of metaphors with three levels adopted from the Master Metaphor List (Lakoff et al., 1991: 36-38).

Level 1: The event structure metaphor Level 2: LONG-TERM PURPOSEFUL CHANGE IS A JOURNEY Level 3: LIFE IS JOURNEY; LOVE IS A JOURNEY; A CAREER IS A JOURNEY

The event structure metaphor on the first level directs mappings from the domain of SPACE onto the domain of TIME. Thus, states are conceptualized as locations, change as motion, causes as forces, actions as self-propelled movements, purposes as destinations etc. These entailments are very general in nature and can be mapped onto subtypes of events. All kinds of long-term purposeful change therefore inherit all the mappings from the event structure metaphor. In turn, the third level metaphors are subtypes of the second level: life, love and careers are all assumed to have a purpose. As a result, we conceive of our goals as destinations,

21 the time that passes before we achieve these goals as our path and the difficulties we encounter as impediments to our motion. Ungerer and Schmid (2006: 125- 127) refer to the increasing specificity of the metaphors from the first to the third level as lean and rich mappings. The metaphors that are higher in the hierarchy tend to be more widespread. The event structure metaphor is even suspected to be universal. Lower level metaphors might depend on the cultural background to a larger extent (Gibbs, 1994: 152-153). Another distinction refers to the conventionality of the mappings between the source and target domain. The metaphorical use of “gorilla”, for instance, seems to be frequent enough for Macmillan’s Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (Rundell & Fox, 2002) to include it as a separate entry (“a big man who seems stupid or violent”). This may not be the case for other, less commonly used metaphorical expressions. As Handl highlights (2011: 30), many linguists put forward different sets of mappings that might hypothetically be used by speakers. However, for an understanding of human cognition, knowledge about the actual conventionality of these mappings is of vital importance. Searle (1979) already noted that the most conventional metaphors, which are perhaps misleadingly referred to as “dead”, must play the most central role in our thoughts:

“Dead metaphors are especially interesting for our study, because, to speak oxymoronically, dead metaphors have lived on. They have become dead through continual use, but their continual use is a clue that they satisfy some semantic need”. (Searle, 1979: 83)

2.6. Metonymy

Metonymy has been a peripheral subject of interest in comparison to metaphor. As Handl (2011: 32) stresses, however, it is a phenomenon well worth studying. Metonymies “provide understanding” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 36) and affect “our thought and action” (ibid.: 39). Just like metaphors, they can be seen as a set of mappings and are systematic in the relations they provide. The difference between the two phenomena lies in the number of domains involved: In metonymy, an entity is used to refer to another entity from the same knowledge domain: “The university needs more clever heads”. Unlike metaphor, there is a

22 within-domain mapping at work. The relationship here is PART FOR THE WHOLE since one body part (i.e. “head”) stands in for the entire person. The selection of the body part is not arbitrary and has a clear communicative function. Human properties commonly associated with the head, such as intelligence, are emphasized. The same PART FOR THE WHOLE relationship is at work in the idiomatic expression “All hands on deck”, but it places greater importance on physical strength than intelligence (Ungerer & Schmidt, 2006). Barcelona (2003a) notes, that the difference between metaphor and metonymy lies in where we draw the line between domains and, in this way, can be a matter of interpretation. An utterance such as “John is a lion” is intuitively understood as a metaphorical mapping between PEOPLE and ANIMALS. If we are to form a wider category of LIVING BEINGS or MAMMALS, however, the utterance could also be understood to be a metonymy (Barcelona, 2003a: 231). As shown in the example, there are ambiguous cases where the distinction is not as clear as Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 265) initially claimed. This leaves us with an understanding of metaphor and metonymy on a continuum with more and less clear cases of these phenomena (Handl, 2011: 34). While metaphor and metonymy serve an equally important cognitive function, Handl’s study (2011: 251) indicates that metaphors may have been the centre of attention in cognitive linguistics because they occur much more frequently.

2.7. Identification of Linguistic and Conceptual Metaphor

In order to conclusively identify metaphorically used words or phrases in real discourse, some criteria need to be agreed on. As the Pragglejaz Group (2007: 2), a team of metaphor scholars from various academic disciplines, pointed out, researchers may often rely on their own intuitions when they decide what counts as a metaphor and what does not, which makes it difficult to compare the results of their studies. Words can be used metaphorically regardless of whether their metaphorical meaning is frequent enough to appear in a dictionary. The decision if a word is metaphorical is dependent on the context and may vary from analyst to analyst. After six years of collaboration, the Pragglejaz Group (2007: 13) therefore presented the metaphor identification procedure (MIP) that allows

23 researchers to pinpoint exactly why they believe a word is used metaphorically in a specific context. MIP is comprised of the following four steps (2007: 3):

1. Read the entire text–discourse to establish a general understanding of the meaning. 2. Determine the lexical units in the text–discourse 3. (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit. (b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purposes, basic meanings tend to be  More concrete; what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.  Related to bodily action.  More precise (as opposed to vague)  Historically older. Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit. (c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current–contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it. 4. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.

Statistical tests indicated that their method of metaphor identification in real discourse is reliable. The six analysts in the Pragglejaz Group applied the method to two texts of discourse of about 675 words each, one news text and one conversation from the British National Corpus. Their judgement as to whether words were used metaphorically or not only diverged concerning 4% of the words in the conversation and 7% of the words in the news text. Conversely, 89% and

82% of the words in the chosen discourses were unanimously agreed on by six independently working analysts (Steen, 2007: 13). By way of illustration, one sentence from the “BBC’s Great Debate” on the referendum will be analysed according to the metaphor identification procedure. Ruth Davidson started her final appeal to the voters after she had been invited to do so by presenter David Dimbleby:

(8) “And you have to be 100% sure because there's no going back on Friday morning, and your decision could cost someone else their job”. (Ruth Davidson, 01:40:32-01:40:40)

A first reading of the debate’s entire transcript reveals that presenters David Dimbleby, Mishal Husain and Emily Maitlis are hosting a debate on whether the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union or not. Members of Parliament, Boris Johnson, Gisela Stuart and Andrea Leadsom support the Vote Leave campaign, while the Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Ruth Davidson, London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, represent Remain. In addition to the opening and closing statements, the key issues discussed were divided into economy, immigration and Britain’s place in the world. Two questions from members of the audience, one from a supporter of the Leave campaign and one from a supporter of the Remain campaign, were addressed to the main speakers, who were nominated by their designated campaigns respectively. Moreover, opinions and comments were given from the second stage by ten further guests split evenly between the two parties. SNP’s Humza Yousaf, Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, and Justin King, former CEO of Sainsbury’s spoke for Remain. On the other side of the argument, Conservative Minister Priti Patel, UKIP’s Diane James, Harsimrat Kaur from Women for Britain, Tim Martin, founder and chairman of Wetherspoons, and journalist and author Tony Parsons represented Leave. Finally, immediate reactions to the debate from social media were assessed and facts checked with the help of the

BBC’s Reality Check team led by Economics Editor, Kamal Ahmad and Europe Editor, Katya Adler. In a second step, the selected example sentence from Ruth Davidson’s closing statement is parsed into lexical units:

And / you / have to / be / 100% sure / because / there's (there / is) / no / going back / on / Friday morning, / and / your / decision / could / cost / someone else / their / job.

Since the meaning of some expressions cannot be arrived at through the composition of the meaning of its parts (i.e. have to, 100% sure, going back, someone else), two morphemes have been subsumed under one lexical unit. Following this, the Pragglejaz Group analyses every single lexical unit, contrasting its basic and its contextual meaning. Hereby, they arrive at a clear decision as to whether the unit is used metaphorically or not. One issue that arises from their distinction of basic and contextual meanings of a lexical unit is the definition of “basic”, as noted by Steen (2007: 15): The Pragglejaz Group name historically older and more concrete human-oriented meanings in the same breath. But historically older meanings do not always have to be more concrete. It turns out, for example, that the verb “reinforce” was used in its sense “to make a group of soldiers, police etc. stronger by adding more people or equipment” almost a century before the more concrete meaning “to make a building, structure, or object stronger“. The solution to this dilemma is the adoption of a synchronic approach, which gives priority to more concrete human-oriented meaning. For the purposes of this thesis, only those two out of the twenty lexical units in the sentence where a metaphorical usage has been found will be presented. The first instance concerns the expression “going back”, which has a more basic meaning that refers to physically tracing one’s steps back. As opposed to this, Ruth Davidson is unmistakably talking about the irreversible future voters will be faced with after they have made a final decision in the referendum. Hence, the lexical unit connects the domain of journey with the domain of life and is used metaphorically in this context. The second instance concerns the lexical unit

“cost” which also has a more basic meaning that refers to the monetary value of goods. Here, however, it is neither used in reference to a physical object, nor is any monetary payment involved. Instead, Ruth Davidson portrays the Brexit as a purchase that comes with a cost, that is, someone else’s job, disproportional to its value, that is, what is gained from leaving the European Union. It follows that this use, too, is metaphorical in the given context. Both times, the metaphorical meaning becomes evident from a comparison between the more basic and the contextual meaning (Pragglejaz Group, 2007: 10). These uses stand in contrast to lexical units with a grammatical function in the sentence (e.g. and, to, because, on etc.) and those with a literal meaning in the context (e.g. Friday morning, decision, job). But even after the metaphorically used words have been identified in a - for the majority of cases - conclusive way, there is still a gap between these single linguistic instances and the underlying conceptual metaphors. Although there are many examples where the name of the particular conceptual metaphor is also used in the linguistic expression, this is not necessarily the case at all times. As Steen ” (1999: 57) emphasises, it cannot remain “an act of faith that particular metaphors in language reflect particular metaphors in thought”. He therefore suggests that the identification of conceptual metaphor in real discourse involves five steps summarized below (2007: 16):

1. Find the metaphorical focus. 2. Find the metaphorical proposition. 3. Find the metaphorical comparison. 4. Find the metaphorical analogy. 5. Find the metaphorical mapping.

Although the expressions “there is no going back on Friday morning” and “your decision could cost someone else their job” can be regarded as wholly metaphorical, only two linguistic units are used metaphorically. They are the metaphorical focus in Steen’s terms and have already been identified above. In a second step, the statement is broken down into a set of propositions in small capitals since metaphor is not just a tool of language but of thought. This step is

27 complicated, however, by the “bewildering” number of approaches to propositionalization, as Steen admits (2007: 19). There is an agreement, however, that a proposition should consist of a predicate, positioned in front, and then one or more arguments (Steen, 1999: 62):

P1 (BE, 100% SURE) P2 (THERE IS, NO GOING BACK, ON FRIDAY MORNING) P3 (COST, YOUR DECISION, THEIR JOB, SOMEONE ELSE)

Proposition one and two are connected through a causal conjunction “because” and proposition two and three by the conjunction “and”. The non-literally used concepts are found in the subject “going back” of proposition two and the predicate of proposition three, “cost”. They are related to the literally used concepts included in the respective proposition (Steen, 1999: 66). Step three requires the identification of a nonliteral comparison since metaphors are assumed to be correspondences between two conceptual domains in which perceived similarity plays an essential role. “Reconstruction of the implied comparison is a critical step in understanding a metaphor”, Miller observes (1993: 381). When source and target domain are determined, the direction of the conceptual mapping is set at the same time. For the first metaphorical expression from proposition two, “going back”, the domains TIME and SPACE are compared. The second metaphorical expression, “cost”, in proposition three is likened to the consequences of the vote. In this way the domain ELECTION is likened to the domain of FINANCE. Although the overall comparison structure is known after this step, the precise mappings between the two domains are only identified in the next step. This involves some degree of interpretation on the part of the analyst (Steen, 2007: 18). In step four the open values of the source and target domain are defined. In the case of the first conceptual metaphor, this can be done without much difficulty since the spatialization of time is one of the best known conceptual metaphors. A consecutive series of events, summarized as CHANGE in the Master Metaphor List, is conceptualized in terms of moving forward along a path, summarized as

MOTION (Lakoff et al., 1991: 2). The similarity perceived between the outcome of the referendum and a commercial transaction lies in the effect both can have on the voters’ welfare. As an advocate of remaining in the European Union, Ruth Davidson wants to persuade the voters that the decision to leave will have a detrimental effect on their future. Commercial transactions, likewise, can either benefit the buyer, or decrease his wealth, that is his well-being. The outcome of the election that is linked to finance is an instance of the CAUSATION IS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION metaphor and its subtype HAVING DETRIMENTAL THINGS HAPPEN TO ONE IS LOSING MONEY, which is less conventional than the former (Lakoff et al., 1991: 25). Finally, the analogy found in step four is transformed into a conceptual mapping. Step five also reveals implicit knowledge we have about the source domain that can be carried over to the target domain. The linguistic metaphor “cost” links the voters’ professions to the realm of commercial transaction and implies that the voters have a limited amount of resources they can decrease or increase through their choice in the upcoming election (Steen, 2007: 19).

3. Metaphors Used in Television Debates on “Brexit”

3.1. Methodology

Perhaps the main point of criticism put forwards against conceptual metaphor theory is the intuitiveness with which researchers provided linguistic examples for the underlying metaphorical mappings they claimed to have found. In Moral Politics, Lakoff (1996, 2002) offers only a handful of metaphorical expressions that manifest the STRICT FATHER and NURTURANT PARENT model in American politics: “founding fathers”, “father of his country”, “Uncle Sam”, “Big Brother”, “fatherland” and “sons going to war” (1996: 153-154). His prediction that Conservatives and Liberals use language in order to construct a completely different world view was only born out in presidential speeches by Reagan and Clinton in a study by Ahrens (2011). The proposed dichotomy could not be confirmed in the other speeches analysed. Corpus linguistics therefore offers a solution to remove the element of intuitiveness in metaphor analysis since it allows researchers to identify the precise frequency that a given conceptual metaphor occurs with. Arguments on whether certain conceptual metaphors are central to a discourse or not can be answered conclusively on the basis of an authentic set of linguistic data. For the purpose of the present thesis, nine television debates from the month of June 2016 were selected. All of them were broadcasted by leading television channels in Great Britain before the EU referendum took place on 23 June of the same year (Statista 2016). The debates were transcribed and saved in a word document with the support of Youtube’s Voice Recognition Tool, but mistakes were edited manually to ensure good quality of the transcription. In the analysis, introductions and closings by the hosts were omitted in order to exclusively count the utterances by politicians, interviewers and members of the audience, who asked questions and responded to politicians. In the case of the “BBC Great Debate” on the EU referendum, the informative input on the three main issues discussed, namely economy, immigration and Great Britain’s place in the world, which was transmitted via a screen in the SSE arena in Wembley, London, was also omitted from the word count. The debates differ in regard to the

30 number of speakers and the style of the discussion. In some debates up to six politicians took turns in taking their stance on particular issues while in others only one politician was questioned by an interviewer. In seven of the nine debates members of the audience were able to ask the politicians a question and received an answer. In all of the debates, one component of the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, namely non-linguistic realization, can be observed especially well (Kövecses, 2009: 14). If more than one speaker is featured in the debate, they are positioned on opposite sides of the panel and confront each other with the most powerful arguments possible. Their manoeuvres are supported or criticized by the audience with applause and cheering. In some instances, members of the audience also comment explicitly on how content they were with the answer they received on their question. Although the data analysed is definitely part of spoken discourse, there is also an element of preparation on the part of the politicians involved. In addition, many of the arguments put forward in the debates were developed and used continuously throughout the period of time preceding the referendum. This is visible by the use of repeated slogans, such as “Take back control”, and evasive answers by politicians, which indicate that they may not have been prepared for certain questions and escaped to familiar terrain in the discussion instead. As previous analysis has shown (Krasnoboka & De Landtsheer, 2007; Vertessen & De Landtsheer, 2007), politicians and media use metaphorical language more frequently and more vehemently during election periods. A study by De Landtsheer & Koch (2005) found that the media coverage on the introduction of the single currency was more metaphorical in the EU member states concerned than those that were not planning on changing their currency. Politicians and media obviously know about the emotive effects metaphorical language has, but are perhaps not always entirely aware of their knowledge. Empirical experiments by Gibbs et al. (2002) demonstrated that metaphorical language is more emotive than literal language. “Political leaders and journalists can use the potential of metaphor in one or more directions, to enhance the perceived greatness of the speaker, to reassure the audience, or in contrast, to

31 increase anxiety or raise anger”, De Landtsheer explains (2009: 63). For these reasons, it can be assumed that politicians in the debates make use of strong metaphoric language to convince the audience. The date of broadcasting, title of the debates, and their respective word count are summarized in the following table:

Table 1: Television Debates in June 2016 TV date Title and speaker(s) Word count channel “EU: In or Out? with David (1) June 2 Sky News 11.699 Cameron” “EU: In or Out? with Michael (2) June 3 Sky News 9.710 Gove”

(3) June 6 BBC “Andrew Neill and Hilary Benn 6.213 Interview” (4) June 7 ITV “ITV Brexit Debate” with Nigel 10.893 Farage and David Cameron “ITV Referendum Debate” with, Andrea Leadsom, Gisela Stuart, (5) June 9 ITV Boris Johnson, Angela Eagle, 21.891 Amber Rudd and Nicola Sturgeon “Nigel Farage and Andrew Neil (6) June 10 BBC 5.778 Interview"

(7) June 15 BBC “Question Time Special” with 8.816 Michael Gove (8) June 17 BBC “Question Time Special” with 9.652 David Cameron “BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate” with Sadiq (9) June 21 BBC Khan, Ruth Davidson, Frances 24.262 O’Grady, Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom, Gisela Stuart Total: 108.914

This kind of corpus-based approach to metaphor, however, raises some methodological questions. Since metaphors are not necessarily based on lexical items, they are more difficult to find in an extensive set of data that cannot be searched manually. As Musolff (2004: 64) describes, the database itself is “meaning-blind”. A manual search is the earliest metaphor identification method and most time consuming (Stefanowitch, 2008: 2). Jäkel (1997), however, justifies its advantages over other methods. Another option is to search the corpus for source domains that are extracted via a field of suitable lexical items. But it is difficult to decide how many lexical items have to be selected to exhaustively identify all the metaphorical expressions belonging to a given conceptual metaphor. Cameron and Deignan (2003: 151) warn that “if the researcher has not comprehensively pre-identified all forms worthy of study”, some of them “may not emerge from the data during analysis, and an important metaphorical use may be missed”. The selection of these lexical items is facilitated if it can be based on a preceding study with an exhaustive list (Partington, 2006; Koller, 2006). A third possibility is to access the conceptual metaphors via their target domains. Lexical items that are associated with the target domains are selected and, in a second step, searched for in the whole corpus. For every occurrence of the lexical items, it will then have to be decided whether they are used metaphorically or not. Stefanowitsch (2006b) calls metaphorical expressions that explicitly mention the vocabulary of the target domain “metaphorical patterns”. He has successfully used his method of metaphorical pattern analysis (MPA) to identify the conceptual methods common in expressing basic human feelings, namely ANGER, FEAR, DISGUST, HAPPINESS and SADNESS. Tested against an earlier study by Kövecses (1998), which had extracted the metaphors manually, his method proved to yield equal results while being more efficient and less time-consuming. This approach has also been adopted by Koivisto-Alanko (2000), Tissari (2003), Stefanowitch (2004), Koivisto-Alanko & Tissari (2006). In addition, combinations of these methods (Stefanowitsch, 2006a: 4-6) or, so-called “metaphor markers” (Cameron & Deignan, 2003) can be used to extract metaphors from a corpus.

For this thesis, it was decided to look for all the metaphors and metonymies manually in a pilot study. A small sized sample from the whole corpus, the transcript of the television programme “BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate”, was searched. This programme will be referred to as “BBC Great Debate” in the remainder of the thesis. The metaphorical or metonymic expression in this transcript where collected in a table according to MIP (Pragglejaz, 2007) and classified according to the conceptual metaphors they arise from by using Steen’s method (2007) as described above. The metonymies identified in the pilot study were restricted to few linguistic items that were then searched in the whole corpus and will be discussed in a separate chapter. In a second step, target domains of interest for the present discussion were selected. The analysis of the metaphors yielded five target domains which are of interest for the Brexit debate and were conceptualized through different metaphors which will be discussed in detail below: LEAVE and REMAIN CAMPAIGN, THE EUROPEAN UNION, IMMIGRATION and CONTROL. The identification of target domains has several advantages for further analysis of metaphor in discourse: Firstly, it saves time and makes identification of metaphors in a large-scale corpus possible. As Charteris-Black (2014) explains, “conceptual metaphor should be identified when there is evidence of the repeated systematic use of the same source domain for the same target in a particular discourse” (2014: 193). Furthermore, the preliminary selection of source domains made it possible to exclude metaphorical expressions that were not of particular interest for this study. Sadiq Khan’s promise at the onset of the Great Debate that “wages will be higher” if Britain were to remain in the European Union, for example, was classified as a clear instance of the conceptual metaphor MORE IS UP in the pilot study. However, this is not a metaphorical expression that is distinctive for the genre and topic that I want to investigate in this thesis. It is just as likely to occur in different contexts. For this reason, it was decided to focus exclusively on the target domains mentioned above. In reference to some of the chosen target concepts a variety of conceptual metaphors were used. On the other hand, some conceptual metaphors that would be expected to occur in a discussion about the European Union in respect of

34 previous data were not or hardly mentioned in the corpus compiled. This is the case for the FAMILY metaphor, commonly used in discourse about social organizations. The reason for its absence in the television debates will also be addressed in a separate section below. The following table summarizes the target domains in small capitals and the lexical items used in reference to them in quotation marks. The conceptual metaphors identified for the respective target domains can be found in the second column. In addition, characteristics of the respective source domains that are mapped onto the target are pointed out in the third column. This is by no means an exhaustive list of mappings, but only a summary of the most relevant ones that will be discussed in the remainder of the thesis.

Table 2: Conceptual metaphors identified for target domains number Target domain Conceptual metaphors identified Relevant mappings

(1)  Membership is clearly delineated  THE EU AS A CONTAINER  Leaving the European Union is spatial movement.  The European Union prevents Great Britain EU (“European  THE EU AS A SUPPRESSOR from realizing its full potential. Union”, “EU”)  The European Union harms Great Britain’s  THE EU AS A DESTRUCTIVE FORCE body politic physically.  The European Union harms Great Britain’s  THE EU AS A PHYSICAL AILMENT body politic physically. (2) LEAVE CAMPAIGN  THE LEAVE CAMPAIGN AS A GAMBLER  The Leave campaign is irresponsible and (“Leave campaign”, takes unnecessary risks. “leave”) (3) REMAIN CAMPAIGN  The Remain campaign tries to scare voters (“Remain  THE REMAIN CAMPAIGN IS PROJECT FEAR and talk Great Britain down. campaign”, “remain”)

(4)  Great Britain only has limited resources IMMIGRATION  GREAT BRITAIN IS A CONTAINER (“immigration”, and limited space to offer. “immigrants”,  Immigration is uncontrollable. “migrants”,  IMMIGRANTS ARE A NATURAL DISASTER  Immigration worsens the living situation of “movement”) the native population. (5)  Control can be retrieved by physical

CONTROL  CONTROL AS A PHYSICAL OBJECT movement. (“control”)  Control is clearly delineated.

 CONTRONL IS UP  On a vertical line, the EU is on top. (6)  Characteristic (countability) stands for the  NUMBER IMMIGRANTS entire person.  Part stands for whole. METONYMIES (“table”,  BRUSSELS FOR THE EU  Centre of administration stands for the “number(s)”, entire organization. “Brussels”)  Part stands for whole.  A TABLE FOR THE EU  Common decision making takes place around a table.

Like in the pilot study, the lexical items associated with the target domains selected from the corpus were then checked for their metaphorical usage according to the Metaphor Identification Procedure developed by the Pragglejaz Group (2007). Ideally, the reliability of the identification process could be increased if two analysts worked on the transcripts separately (Charteris-Black, 2014: 179), but this was not possibly within the scope of this thesis. As far as the counting of metaphor is concerned, I follow Charteris-Black (2014: 176) in arguing that “the unit of measurement should be the phrase rather than the word” since this is how metaphors typically appear in discourse. His view diverges from the Pragglejaz Group (2007), who count the number of metaphorically used words and, thus, identify two metaphors for the expression “wear the mantle” in their example: “Sonia Ghandi has struggled to convince Indians that she is fit to wear the mantle of the political dynasty into which she married” (2007: 3). Here, the metaphoricity only arises from the combination of lexical items in the sentence, which yields only one, instead of two metaphors. One of the issues that occurred when analysing the “BBC Great Debate” in the pilot study was that the majority of the most frequently identified metaphors were highly conventional and did not represent a distinct feature of the language used in television debates on the EU referendum. Metaphors which provided particularly salient visual images in their novelty, on the other hand, were identified a far smaller number of times or only once. It is undoubted, for instance, that the metaphorical expression “so that we can plan ahead properly” (Gisella Stuart on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:44:45-00:44:48) as a part of the event structure metaphor shapes human cognition in general and, thus, the expression is just as likely to occur in any other context. When a speaker in a public debate uses the expression “this rotting carbuncle of the European Union”

(Tony Parsons on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:08:30 - 01:08:33), on the other hand, this is a metaphor distinct to this context that will, arguably, have a much higher impact on listeners than the by far more frequently repeated event structure metaphor. For this reason, Stefanwitsch’s claim that frequency is the only criterion that shows how central certain conceptual metaphors are for certain issues is not entirely accurate (2006: 65). Instead, novelty and salience are

additional criteria that need to be taken into account as well. De Landtsheer (2009) has developed a method to calculate the metaphor power of a given expression. In metaphor power analysis (MPA) not only frequency, but also metaphor intensity and metaphor content are taken into account. Metaphor intensity is related to novelty and states that original metaphors have a higher impact than dormant or dead metaphors (Tsoukas, 1991). Last but not least, metaphor content determines metaphor power through the source domain employed. De Landtsheer (2009: 66-68) divides sources into six categories, such as family, nature and illness, and assigns them different amounts of emotive power. Her analysis shows frequency cannot be the only factor taken into account when measuring the strength of a metaphorical expression. Another question that was raised by the analysis of the sample was how concrete the source domains of the metaphors identified needed to be. In the traditional theory of conceptual metaphor, source domains are typically grounded in basic physical experience. The pilot study showed, however, that there are a number of metaphors which make use of source domains that are arguably just as abstract as the target domain they conceptualize. Still, these metaphors enable us to understand one thing in terms of something else. The Leave campaign in the “BBC Great Debate” and, as will be shown, in the whole corpus referred to their political opponents as “project fear”. FEAR in itself is an abstract concept that is understood in terms of a number of conceptual metaphors (e.g. Kövecses 1998). Nevertheless, it serves as the source domain that is mapped onto the target of the Remain side in the argument. This thesis is not the only one confronted with this methodological issue. Musolff (2016: 91) recently argued that a less rigid definition of metaphors is needed to account for the data in linguistic corpora: “a discursive, dynamic tool of assimilating any target topic to a more familiar set of concepts, in order to redirect and reshape its understanding by the respective communication partners”. The degree of familiarity of a particular source domain is judged by the language users according to the sociocultural context. Since it explains the use of metaphorical language found in the corpus, Musolff’s view (2016) will be adopted for the present thesis.

For this study, it does not make sense to take a purely quantitative approach due to the small size of the given corpus. Therefore, the frequency of metaphors that occurred repeatedly will be included, but single instances will, nevertheless, be incorporated in the discussion. Finally, this thesis does not argue that metaphor and metonymy in political discourse need to be identified because they have such a manipulative impact on the audience, who is rendered defenceless. This “therapeutic” stance towards conceptual metaphor analysis earned Lakoff (1996, 2002) much criticism (e.g. Hutton, 2001; Twardzisz 2013: 37-62). His aim to expose conceptual structures which users themselves may not be aware of is seen as patronizing towards the public. In defence of Lakoff, it must be said that, according to his earlier publication, metaphors “can be self-fulling prophecies” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 156; emphasis added), not that they invariably have to be. Crucial in this disagreement is the point that language users must be granted some agency in whether they fully accept entailments of conceptual metaphors or not. The consequences of metaphorical language can only be hypothesised about in hindsight because the reception by the audience needs to be taken into account. As Musolff (2016: 30) argues, conceptual metaphors are “contestable and depend for their success on their discursive plausibility”. Overall, conceptual metaphor can be seen to have persuasive, but not manipulative power. Van Dijk (2006) makes the following distinction between persuasion and manipulation:

“(. . .) in persuasion the interlocutors are free to believe or act as they please, depending on whether or not they accept the arguments of the persuader, whereas in manipulation recipients are typically assigned a more passive role: they are victims of manipulation. This negative consequence of manipulative discourse typically occurs when the recipients are unable to understand the real intentions or to see the full consequences of the beliefs or actions advocated by the manipulator. This may be the case especially when the recipients lack the specific knowledge that might be used to resist manipulation”. (Van Dijk, 2006: 361)

In the television debates analysed for the following study, the politicians of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, characterized the European Union as “a job destroying machine”, quoting the high unemployment rates in Southern European countries as proof for their claim. This metaphor will be discussed in greater detail below. However, it can be observed that their conceptualization of the European Union was not indiscriminately accepted by other language users. Host David Dimbleby confronted Michael Gove on the “BBC Question Time Special”, refuting his claim of the European Union as “a job destroying machine”:

(9) “Just to pick up on the job destroying machine that you called the EU the other day: At the Tory Party conference you were boasting that you’d created more than twenty million jobs, more than any other government in history. That doesn’t sound like a job destroying machine or are we out of the EU in terms of all the many jobs we actually created?” (David Dimbleby on “BBC Question Time Special”, 00:23:17-00:23:35)

Michael Gove countered that many of the jobs created had been filled by immigrants who had come to Great Britain because they “suffered” from the European Union and the introduction of the single currency. Nevertheless, it is clear that David Dimbleby criticized Michael Gove for his use of metaphor and compared it to other, contradictory statements he had made in a different context. Voters and language users in general, thus, are not necessarily victims of politicians’ persuasive metaphors. In the following discussion, I will explain the conceptual metaphors identified in the corpus in greater detail. Exemplary utterances (10-69) by speakers in the television debates will be used in order to illustrate them. The examples can sometimes contain more than one conceptual metaphor, but the ones focused on will be highlighted by using italics. The choice of particular source domains for the target domains selected above will yield certain entailments for the issues treated. Last but not least, the findings of this study will be compared to

those in existing studies, such as the EUROMETA corpus (Musolff, 2004 and 2016), whenever possible.

3.2. Remain and Leave Campaign: Project Fear vs. Gambling with Britain’s Future

The Remain Campaign was frequently labelled as “project fear” by politicians of the Leave side in the argument. There are 13 instances of “project fear” explicitly mentioned in the corpus. This, however, does not take related terms like “scaremongering” and “pessimism” into account, which were also frequently used to paint a negative picture of the Remain campaign. One example is Boris Johnson’s response to the question what would happen to the British economy in reaction to their leaving the European Union. He argues that there would be no economic shock and predicts that Great Britain will still have access to the single market which MP Angela Eagle, supporter of the Remain side, vehemently opposes. Boris Johnson, subsequently, dismisses her argument as “project fea”r. He also argues that their own supporters are deterring voters from deciding to leave the European Union:

(10) “I think we are just starting to degenerate into project fear again, don’t you think? I’m very struck by the way they do this because there’s one, there’s a member of this panel [pointing at the supporters of the Remain side] who complained about the Remain campaign and said that their miserable and fear-based campaign starts to insult people’s intelligence.” (Boris Johnson on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 00:26:06-00:26:22)

Andrea Leadsom, similarly, accuses the Remain campaign of scaremongering in the same debate when the benefits of leaving the European Union for the NHS are discussed. While the Leave side argues that money presently invested into the European Union could instead be used to fund the NHS, the Remain campaign contests this view saying that there would be no more money available for the NHS and was, consequently, confronted with the following accusation:

(11) “It’s absolute nonsense. It’s scaremongering – and it’s miserable scaremongering – and people in this country will see through it”. (Andrea Leadsom on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 00:54:21- 00:54:29)

This depiction of the Remain campaign clearly has an impact on British voters. On the “EU: In or Out?” debate with David Cameron, the prime minister was blamed by a member of the audience for scaring people:

(12) “I do want to point out that I’ve been strongly wanting to vote into the EU, but to be honest the entire campaign has been a shamble for it. I’ve seen nothing but scaremongering. I see no valid facts at all”. (member of the audience on “EU: In or Out?” with David Cameron, 00:30:19-00:30:30)

In line with this general metaphor is Conservative MP Priti Patel’s statement that the Remain campaign is pessimistic. Asked how her support of the Leave campaign squares with her own position in a government that won the election on the basis of not taking a risk with the economy, she countered:

(13) “We’ve heard very clearly tonight that we’re the optimists. We have a brighter, more prosperous future outside the European Union, a complete contrast to the Remain side that want to constantly talk Britain down. (…) We can negotiate new trade deals. It’s pessimistic to hear from the Remain side that they’re not even interested in doing that”. (Priti Patel on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:34:41-00:35:00)

The closing words by the Secretary of State of Justice at the time, Michael Gove, once more contrasted the alleged pessimism of the Remain campaign with the hopefulness of the Leave side and are eerily reminiscent of the Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America great again”, in the US election campaign:

(14) “Can I just say thank you to all of the audience: This debate is so important. It really matters to all of us what you decide and I think instead of the pessimism of the Remain campaign we have an opportunity to think of the next generation if we have faith in their talent, in their generosity, in their hard work, we can, if we leave the European Union, ensure the next generation make this country once more truly great” (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:55:37- 00:56:04)

Similarly, Tony Parson, writer and supporter of the Leave campaign, argued: “I personally believe we live in the greatest country in the world” (“BBC Great Debate”, 01:36:45-01:36:53) and, hence, mimics American rhetoric. Charteris- Black (2014: 155-159) also detects an influence of American rhetoric on British politicians in the borrowing of the beacon metaphor. Orators like Martin Luther Kind, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have frequently compared the United States of America to a beacon for the rest of the world since the metaphor evokes positive emotions and adds positive evaluations to their own policies. In 1997, shortly after the victory of his party, Tony Blair adopted the image of Great Britain as a beacon to the world throughout his speech. Here, Michael Gove builds on this tradition:

(15) “[…] our democratic traditions in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are what have enabled us, globally, to be a beacon, setting an example, being a force for good and making sure that we are a great place for everyone to live” (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:43:45-00:44:00)

Boris Johnson is similarly influenced by American rhetoric in his closing statement at the “BBC Great Debate”. Undoubtedly, the US celebrates the world’s most famous Independence Day, a celebration which Boris Johnson predicts for Great Britain:

(16) “If we vote Leave and take back control, I believe that this Thursday could be our countries Independence Day”. (Boris Johnson on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:42:54-01:43:00)

Framed in this way, leaving the European Union becomes a provocative matter of pride for Great Britain. The usage of metaphor shifts the question from whether Britain is better off inside the European Union to whether they are strong enough to make it on their own without the aid of the 27 other member states. The Leave campaign is almost representing the referendum as a test of courage for the country. This entails that voting to remain is an act of fear and distrust of one’s own country. Charteris-Black (2014: 201) describes how metaphor can arouse feelings that are favourable to the speakers, which is one of its seven main purposes. The politicians on the Leave side achieve this effect by emphasizing the economic strength and independence of Britain and referring back to its historical success. In addition, they manage to conceal that they, too, try to scare voters about the future of Great Britain, should they stay in the European Union. Naturally, both campaigns attempted to bring to light the negative consequences of what they believed to be the wrong decision, but only the Leave campaign was successful in establishing the PROJECT FEAR metaphor and portraying their political opponents in a negative way. Therefore, metaphors in political discourse “offer positive representations of the speaker and his supporters, of their actions and policies, and a negative representation of opponents and their actions and policies” (Charteris-Black, 2014: 204). In response, the Remain campaign created two variations of the PROJECT FEAR metaphor, namely “project hate” and “project lies”. These were, however, mentioned far less frequently in the corpus. There are only three instances of “project lies” in all the television debates and all of them came from a member of the audience in the “EU: In or Out?” debate with Michael Gove. (This is not to say, of course, that the two sides did not accuse each other of lying more often, but the variation on “project fear” as “project lies” was only put forward three times). In a single instance, Sadiq Khan labels the Leave side as “project hate”

regarding the issue of immigration in the “BBC Great Debate”. He is definitely aware that he has to face the pervasive PROJECT FEAR metaphor in the debate:

(17) “You might start off saying how wonderful immigration is. But your campaign hasn’t been project fear. It’s been project hate as far as immigration is concerned”. (Sadiq Khan on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:44:04-00:44:21)

Conversely, the Remain campaign framed their opponents in the argument as gambling with Britain’s future. As Sadiq Khan exemplifies in his initial summary of the Remain side’s argument and Frances O’Grady repeats later:

(18) “Even those on the Remain side admit it’s a big gamble”. (Sadiq Khan on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:05:41-00:05:49) (19) “Union reps, from BMW, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, you name it, across the manufacturing sector are saying that we cannot afford this gamble with our jobs, our wages, our livelihoods and our rights”. (Frances O’Grady on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:14:33-00:14:47)

The conceptual metaphor BREXIT IS A GAMBLE is also implicit in David Cameron’s closing statement on the “EU: In or Out?” debate where he addresses the audience one last time:

(20) “As we go home, we wake up in the morning, we look our children and grandchildren in the eyes who we’re responsible for through our pay packet. Let us not roll a dice on their future.” (David Cameron on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:53:22-00:53:32)

In this same debate, one member of the audience drew a particularly vivid image of the Leave campaign’s lack of information about what would happen after Brexit. Although he chose the source domain WAR instead of GAMBLE, the entailments are similar to the examples given above, namely that the Leave side

are not taking responsibility for the consequences of Great Britain’s leaving the European Union:

(21) “With all due respect, Mr. Gove, it appears to me it’s almost like a first world war general. You’re waving the flag, you’re saying, ‘Over the top, men’, but you have no idea what’s in the front line or what the casualty will be in the conflicts to come”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:37:40-00:37:55)

Here, the Leave campaigners are conceptualized as irresponsible military leaders who risk their soldiers’ lives without sufficient knowledge of the terrain or the odds of victory. Their lack of strategy is bizarrely advertised by waving the flag. The soldiers, on the other hand, stand in for the voters and supporters of the Remain campaign. They are naïve, uninformed and trust their leaders blindly. The consequences for their imprudent decision will lead to a fight for survival that will likely cost them their lives and impact the future generations to come. This metaphor entails a reproach of the Leave campaigners, who did not bother to inform the voters of the detrimental consequences of Brexit for the country, and of their voters, who acted on hollow promises. Another way to highlight the uncertainty inherent in leaving the European Union is the metaphor of a leap in the dark without knowing what lies ahead. Sadiq Khan pointedly used this image in his opening and closing statements:

(22) “The stakes are high. You either vote Leave and take a leap in the dark or you vote Remain and build on that prosperity”. (Sadiq Khan on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:02:01-00:02:08) (23) “You [confronting the Leave side] want the British public to take a one-way leap in the dark without a plan”. (Sadiq Khan on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:34:10-01:34:17)

3.3. Dysfunctional Family Ties with the European Union

It is striking that hardly any of the lexemes manifesting the FAMILY metaphor can be found in the corpus of the television debates. Andreas Musolff (2016) found that the relationship between Britain and Europe was predominantly depicted as a troubled marriage in the EUROMETA corpus, a bilingual sample of press coverage on EU politics in Britain and Germany since 1990 (2016: 34). This corpus also shows that the possibility of leaving the EU was referred to as marital rows, divorce or adultery previous to the referendum. The Daily Mail and The Independent described an “amicable divorce” from the EU, while The Economist humoured: “Britain and Europe are like a couple in a difficult marriage. One day they have a blazing row; the next they want to kiss and make up” (quoted in Musolff, 2016: 33). The “amicable divorce” was mentioned by Nigel Farage when he answered a question on the economic hit Britain might take as a consequence of leaving the European Union:

(24) “Once we have divorced ourselves, amicably, from the political union we will then go on buying cars and wine and trading”. (Nigel Farage on the “ITV Brexit Debate”, 00:03:40-00:03:45)

The second time “divorce” was mentioned, it was again Nigel Farage who argued in his interview with Andrew Neill that “divorce from political union” would allow Great Britain to “re-engage with the rest of the world” (“Nigel Farage and Andrew Neil Interview”, 00:27:04-00:27:09). The only time this divorce was painted in a negative light was put forward by a member of the audience in in one of the debates:

(25) “It appears to me that you’re asking people to vote for a divorce and sort the financial settlement out afterwards. And that makes no sense to me. You know, there’s lots of people who divorce and the last thing you want to do is to try and sort out the money afterwards. You need to negotiate before. And without having a plan in place, without 48

having put the effort in before, it makes no sense to me”. (member of the audience on “EU: In or Out? with Michael Gove”, 00:37:07- 00:37:36)

The argument that Micheal Gove and the Leave campaign are unprepared for the financial settlement of the divorce from Europe, refers to their apparent lack of trade deals they should have prepared in case of the Brexit. As Anderson (1983) argues, communities are imagined. Since metaphors are the principal linguistic instrument of imagination and construction of social reality, FAMILY metaphors can have a profound impact on the way the European Union is conceived of. After all, metaphors “constitute the object they signify” (Hülsse, 2006: 403). During the enlargement of the European Union during the 1990s, the FAMILY metaphor was often employed in reference to the joining of the Easter European states. The enlargement was viewed as a “family reunion” or as “homecoming” and the new member states as “our European brothers” (Hülsse, 2006: 406). As Hülsse (2006) observes, this depoliticises the enlargement process and implies that membership is a birth right: it has to be granted to the Eastern European states regardless of whether they fulfil the required conditions or not. However, elements from the source domain of the FAMILY were apparently not seen as fitting for the relationship between the European Union and Great Britain in the television debates analysed. As can be seen from the slogan of the Leave campaign on public transport (“We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave.”) the European Union is never conceptualized as a provider or an equal. In addition, EU regulations are issued by a stranger to the country, somebody who is entirely unrelated to the best interests of Great Britain. Such a relationship is much easier to break up than strong family ties between the “European brothers”, as the member states have been called in the past (Hülsse, 2006: 406). Rather, the EU suppresses the country with its regulations and, simultaneously, takes more financial resources than it gives back. Since none of these elements fit the target domain EU MEMBERSHIP, it is not surprising that neither the FAMILY nor the related HOME metaphor occurred in the

corpus, which would have entailed a primordial and natural position of Britain in the European Union. It may be that Great Britain had never sufficiently felt to be a part of a family of nations for politicians to use family terms when addressing their potential voters. When the Amsterdam Treaty was negotiated in 1997, the new currency was metaphorically framed as a “child” (Musolff, 2004). In contrast to the other member states, Great Britain never became the “parent” of this child. What is more, the strongest relationship between member states of the EU was always depicted between France and Germany, a (married) couple. Great Britain’s awkward role was expressed as “ménage a trois” or “love triangle” by the press (Musolff, 2004: 15). “In the long gestation of Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union […] it suddenly seems likely this week that the anxious parents, Germany and France, are expecting a soft baby euro”, The Guardian wrote on 30 May 1997 for example. In addition, the more elaborate FAMILY metaphors Musolff identified in the newspaper articles might be restricted to written language. In this sample of transcripts, at least, not even the Remain supporters made use of metaphors about family ties with Europe.

3.4. Immigration

The source domains utilized to talk about immigration in the television debates are conceptually closely linked to the NATION AS A CONTAINER metaphor. Since containers have an inside, an outside, distinct boundaries and openings that can be closed completely or partially, there is only a limited capacity of content that the nation can make room for. This conceptualisation is, of course, not exclusive to Great Britain, but can be observed across European countries: Del-Teso-Craviotto (2009) demonstrates how the minority of immigrants from Argentina is constructed as the “out-group” in Spain. Von der Volk (2003) examines the right- wing political discourse in France and finds metaphors of AGRESSION, WAR and WATER, which all highlight the loss of control over immigration. Also, TRAFFIC metaphors are used by the media to suggest easy access to the benefits of the French social system and BUILDING metaphors to describe the limited restriction

to the immigration process. Charteris-Black (2006) analysed the British right- wing political discourse and media in spoken and written sources and found two primary metaphors in reference to immigration that overlap roughly with the findings of this study. Firstly, there is the CONTAINER metaphor already mentioned. Secondly, there is the metaphor of NATURAL DISTASTER, in particular those metaphorical expressions connected to WATER such as tsunamis, floods and tidal waves. Charteris-Black (2006) argues that both these metaphors have persuasive power by evoking strong emotions of fear and desire for protection. Only two instances of the WATER metaphor were found in the corpus. In both of these examples there is a NATURAL DISASTER envisaged because of the vast number of immigrants:

(26) “I’ve been campaigning against EU enlargement for 20 years because I thought letting in people whose average incomes were so much lower than ours would lead to big migratory waves and problems.” (“Nigel Farage and Andrew Neil Interview”, 00:19:15- 00:19:24) (27) “How do we deal with the increased demand on our public services given the seemingly never-ending stream of people arriving from Europe?” (member of the audience on “EU: In or Out? with David Cameron”, 00:33:30-00:33:40) (28) “What we’ve seen over the last 20 years is that the waves of globalization, whether it be services, people or goods – this institution [the EU] has not been able to deal with”. (Gisela Stuart on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:19:09-01:19:20)

In the last utterance “waves” are actually specified as “of globalization” by Gisella Stuart where “globalization” seems to be conceptualized as FLUID, which in not a conventional metaphor. Since this expression is immediately followed by “people”, a concept which his far more likely to be conceptualized as FLUID, it was counted as belonging to the same category. The fact that Gisela Stuart puts

“services” and “goods” on the same level with immigrants further emphasises the dehumanizing effect that the WATER metaphor has. Moreover, the WATER metaphor is particularly apt at conveying the loss of control on immigration into the country (Van der Valk, 2000: 234). A report of migration in the news from 2010 to 2012 (Allen & Blinder, 2013) found that other water-based metaphors, such as “influx”, “wave”, and “flood”, are among the most frequently used for immigration. The same report also showed that “illegal” is the descriptor most frequently used in connection with immigrants. The pairing of the world “illegal” and “immigrants” in combination with the WATER metaphor can be critically misleading since the vast majority of immigrants in Great Britain have, in fact, legal status. The rising numbers of immigrants are therefore not as uncontrolled as the rhetoric in the television debates and media reports suggests. Connected to the idea of NATION STATE AS A CONTAINER is the source domain PRESSURE that builds up if there is too much of a fluid inside the container. “Pressure” in connection with immigration is mentioned a total of 48 times in the corpus investigated, showing that this is a central category for the target domain IMMIGRATION. On the one hand, pressure is linked to the demand on the NHS and public services Great Britain offers to its people, on the other hand, migrants are seen as putting downwards pressure on locals’ wages.

(29) “Those people in Greece and Spain, who are suffering so much as a result of the European Union, are coming here in order to put pressure on jobs here”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:15:48-00:15:55) (30) “If we remain in the EU, what plans do you have to deal with the pressure of migrants on the NHS and its workers?” (member of audience on “ITV Brexit Debate” addressed to David Cameron, 00:34:16-00:34:23) (31) “Uncontrollable immigration is having a dampening effect on wages and what we’re finding is: school places have pressure on, doctors’ surgery appointments and, of course, getting onto the housing ladder.” (Andrea Leadsom on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 00:09:24-00:09:39)

In the last example, both WATER (“dampening effect”) and CONTAINER (“pressure on”) metaphors are combined without causing any problem for the audience’s understanding. “Strain”, as in ”Our NHS is under tremendous strain” (“BBC Question Time Special with Michael Gove”, 00:29:26-00:29:29), and “drive down”, as in “In too many places immigration has driven down local wages” (“BBC Great Debate”, 00:19:19-00:19:26), are also lexicalizations of the CONTAINER metaphor that suggest limited resources. They occurred three times respectively in connection to immigration in the corpus. The entailment that all of these expressions have in common is that immigration is detrimental for the living conditions of those already living in Britain. The concept of a nation state containing all the necessary resources for its people, which are limited in quantity, is also manifested in the argument that immigrants should “put in” before they can “take out” of that system:

(32) “Crucially on immigration and the movement of people, I said I didn’t think it was right that people could come to our country and immediately take out”. (Nigel Farage on the “ITV Brexit Debate”, 00:29:31-00:29:38) (33) “The right answer is the approach that David Cameron has taken, which is negotiating a special arrangement with the European Union whereby people who come here could only take out when they’ve put in”. (Angela Eagle on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 00:08:53- 00:09:04) (34) “Some economic surveys will say that EU migrants pay more tax than they take out in benefits”. (“Nigel Farage and Andrew Neil Interview”, 00:06:49-00:06:55)

There are eleven instances in which the CONTAINER metaphor is realized through these phrasal verbs. What is more, “take out” is only used in the sense of “receiving benefits from the country” in the entire corpus. These findings show that there are conceptual mappings between the domains NATION and CONTAINER

that enable politicians in the debates to talk about “taking out” and “putting in” without explicit reference to Great Britain or its government A third and last conceptualization device in reference to immigration found in this corpus is to the NUMBER metonymy. Although the metonymy is often explicated as “number of people”, “number” or the plural “numbers” occur by themselves 46 times. As can be seen from the frequency of this metonymy, politicians and audience members in the debate are very likely to refer to “numbers coming into Great Britain”, rather than “people” or even “numbers of people”. Obviously, the NUMBER metonymy is far more suited to convey the Leave side’s wish to control how many persons are allowed to stay in the country than the WATER metaphor that symbolizes the loss of control. Like the metaphors mentioned above, the metonymy also deprives immigrants of their human status by reducing them to their single feature of countability.

(35) “And it’s because I believe our country is so great that I want to control who comes here and the numbers that come here”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:33:37-00:33-49) (36) “We need to build a house every four minutes night and day just to cope with the current numbers”. (Nigel Farage on the “ITV Brexit Debate”, 00:17:30-00:17:37) (37) “When it comes to immigration outside the EU, we do put a limit on numbers that come for economic reasons”. (David Cameron on the “ITV Brexit Debate”, 00:32:01-00:32:08) (38) “Part of the reason of those stresses in the long term is because we cannot control the numbers coming in”. (Gisella Stuart on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 00:51:18-00-00:51:23)

Like Musolff (2016) found, the public media does not make use of openly hostile metaphors towards immigrants. In newspaper articles on immigration since 1990 PARASITE imagery, historically employed to spread the ideology of totalitarian systems, hardly occurred; neither did it in the television debates investigated here. Shockingly, PARASITE metaphors are much easier to be found in anti-immigration

blog posts where the language use is so harsh that “there is little conceptual difference to Nazi propaganda” (Musolff, 2016: 87). The internet seems to give a license to such conceptualizations. Although it is true that no such blatant hostility and racism towards immigrants were identified in the corpus, there are no instances of metaphors that cast a positive light on immigration either. Steen (2008: 222-223) introduced the category of “deliberate metaphor” in regard to figurative language use that is “a relatively conscious discourse strategy that aims to elicit particular rhetorical effects” and is “expressly meant to change the addressee’s perspective on the referent or topic”. Deliberate and non- deliberate metaphors are presented as the solution to the paradoxical problem that metaphor analysis requires the comparison of source and target domains but that metaphorical processing, according to empirical studies, does not always involve this comparison and relies on semi-automatic categorization instead, especially when it comes to conventionalized metaphors (Steen, 2008: 232-238). Gibbs (2011) opposes this view by arguing that the composition process of a text or speech may be deliberate, but that the way that metaphors are accessed is inherently automatic. Thus, no conscious comparison of source and target domains takes place, which renders the distinction between deliberate and non- deliberate metaphors unnecessary (Gibbs, 2011: 49). But purposeful communication is used deliberately to achieve certain effects on one’s audience and new metaphors are constantly found to draw desired mappings between two concepts. This means that speakers, especially those in public discourse, cannot be relieved of the responsibility of choosing their language. This is the view taken by Deignan (2011), Müller (2011), Steen (2011) and Musolff (2016)

3.5. The European Union as a Container

The EUROPEAN UNION AS A CONTAINER is one of the least structured metaphors in the corpus since it is an ontological metaphor, but clearly the most frequently repeated. The debates on Sky News with David Cameron and Michael Gove are called “In or Out?” and politicians talk about “leaving” or “remaining in” the European Union. The blended word form “Brexit” itself is a manifestation of the

container image. Clearly, the geographical location of Great Britain will not change after the referendum, but the political decision of the “exit” is conceptualized as spatial movement out of the European container. Petrica (2011: 149) observes that, especially for insular countries, such as Great Britain or Malta, joining the European Union seems to change geographical location, giving rise to the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A GEOGRAPHY CHANGER. Membership exchanges isolation and limited political relations and resources for a more central position within the multinational organization. Great Britain’s position as a country that wants to leave the container is unusual since being inside is commonly judged as an advantage. Tekin (2010) explains how the container metaphor is employed to draw a clear boundary between the countries inside the European Union and the outsider Turkey. In this case, Turkey is described as “knocking on the door” of Europe and asking for entrance in order to be admitted into the security of the European container (Tekin, 2010: 195-204). Since leaving the presumably beneficial place in the centre of administration and political decision making is not inherently regarded as positive, the Remain campaign warned about the dangers of being outside this community while the Leave campaign concentrated on casting a bad light on Europe in different ways:

(39) “This is a one way ticket. If we’re out, we’re out. We will pay with our jobs and wages if we go.” (Frances O’Grady on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:02:12-01:02:28) (40) “There is a contrast between this side of the argument that is offering hope and that side of the argument that is offering nothing but fear about life outside”. (Boris Johnson on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:45:09-01:45:15) (41) “We have a strong position at the centre of Europe. It makes us stronger, safer and better off”. (Amber Rudd on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:42:30-01:42:37)

It is significant that the CONTAINER metaphor in the examples above suggests a clear distinction between who is outside and inside an organization. David Cameron stressed the special status of Great Britain in the European Union multiple times since the country neither joined the single currency nor the Schengen area, but still enjoys the economic benefits of being a member. His argument revealed that membership does not equal membership. The CONTAINER metaphor, however, does not permit such an interpretation. At best, one can be on the brink of entering or exiting the container, but otherwise the absolute location is either inside or outside the organization. Like other figures and tropes in language, metaphor works to construct “social representation of ingroup and outgroup” (Van Dijk 2000: 100). The conceptualization of the European Union as a container also persists in the post-Brexit scenario imagined by the prime minister:

(42) “The European Union doesn't stop existing just because we've left. The channel doesn't get any wider if we decide to leave. A group of people would be sitting around a table making decisions about our biggest market, about the future of our continent, about things that affect us and we would have our nose sort of pressed to the window trying to find out what decision they will make”. (David Cameron on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:15:06-00:15:26)

Here, David Cameron also adds an evaluative judgement to the distinction between the inside and the outside. What is close to the centre of the container is at the heart of the self and in control. By leaving the European Union, Great Britain will lose this position and be unable to know what happens behind the impenetrable wall of the European container. Another image used by the Remain campaign to anticipate the peripheral position Great Britain will have after Brexit is that of a queue of countries that are waiting to trade with the United States:

(43) “Let’s be clear about this: Remain has highlighted President Obama’s threat. He said a couple of weeks back that if we left the EU,

we’d be at the back of the queue when it comes to trade deals”. (“Hilary Benn and Andrew Neil Interview”, 00:22:35-00:22: 43) (44) “If we come out, we go to the back of the queue. That’s not project fear. That’s what Obama said”. (Ruth Davidson on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:29:57-00:30:06)

Brexit, in other words, is an unwise move for Great Britain because it means leaving its privileged position at the front, which it has achieved through membership, in order to go to the back of the queue. In contrast to the vertical dimension observed for the CONTROL IS UP metaphor, politicians introduce a horizontal dimension which classifies countries according to their relative position to the centre. The smaller the distance to the centre is, the greater the influence of the country in question. As was already observed in the case of Turkey, most countries wish to progressively get closer to the centre. This explains why the image of a queue is perfectly suitable to envisage the situation. Chilton (2004: 204) describes how spatial containment schemas of this sort “make concepts of the group and identity available”. This conceptualization is also used for individual countries, such as Great Britain, which was demonstrated in reference to the target domain IMMIGRATION. Since metaphor typically explains the less familiar in terms of the more familiar, the container schema is naturally extended to the multi-national organization of the EU in this case. One variation of the CONTAINER metaphor is THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A HOUSE. The two conceptual metaphors share “the notion of a bounded area protecting what is inside from external danger” (Charteris-Black, 2006: 563). This was first coined by Gorbatchev in his phrase “the common house of Europe” and was widely used in European politics after 1989 (Chilton & Ilyin, 1993). The HOUSE metaphor is more specific in that buildings, unlike containers, can be constructed by their inhabitants according to their preferences. In the following example, however, Michael Gove declines that Great Britain had any part in building the European Union:

(45) “Instead of having a fractious relationship which – let’s be honest – we do have at the moment, we can move to being friendly neighbours. And I think far better than being a difficult lodger in a house that we didn’t design is being a great neighbour in a home that we can call our own”. (Michael Gove on Sky News, 00:46:20-00:46:36)

Great Britain assumes the passive role that merely goes along with the plans of the European Union. But these plans do not fit the interests of Great Britain because it did not take part in the design of the house where they both have to live. By regaining control over its own political, social and economic issues, Britain is taking care of its own container and, thus, building a home that the British people can call their own. The conception as a “difficult lodger” suggests that the present situation, by contrast, is unpleasant for both parties. As shown in this chapter, the European identity is imagined in terms of a container. This shows how we are still caught in nationalist thinking patterns, which do not allow for transition zones between the self and the other. Container metaphors propose that there are clear-cut boundaries between entities and, thus, imagine identity as exclusive. As Hülsse (2006) has shown, the only metaphor used in the European enlargement process that was able to convey a post-modern or post-national identity, is the PATH metaphor. The abundance of other metaphors that describe national identity, on the other hand, proves that the European community is only rarely envisaged as a post-modern political entity, as proposed by some (e.g. Schimmelfennig, 2001; van Ham, 2001; Manners & Whitman, 2003; Scott, 2005). In the Brexit debate, PATHS as a source domain would have proved a helpful device to form a mental picture of the different degrees of membership David Cameron tried to describe. PATHS conceptualize identity in terms of degrees and stages, rather than well-defined borders. Although he did not explicitly denounce it, Tim Farron nevertheless criticized the construction of national identity the CONTAINER metaphor entails:

(46) “Are we an outward-looking, decent, embracing, tolerant country, confident of our place in the world? Or are we insular? Are we small? Are we glowering across the white cliffs of Dover, something that is very un-British? I’m voting in because I’m a patriot!” (Tim Farron on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:36:16-01:36:36)

3.6. Taking back Control

The pilot study showed that the Leave campaign’s slogan, “Take back control”, was mentioned a staggering 22 times. This trend was continued in the entire corpus where the slogan occurred a total of 60 times, often used prominently by politicians at the end of a statement in order to finish their point. Based on the neural theory of language, Lakoff (2009: 116) argues: “Say things not once, but over and over. Brains change when ideas are repeatedly activated”. Even without taking the neural theory of language into consideration, this high frequency in the corpus shows the salience of the issue in the debates. In contrast to human emotions (e.g. Kövecses, 2003), there are few attempts to find the source domains employed to metaphorically conceptualize the target domain CONTROL. Yet, the corpus strongly suggests that CONTROL is the issue at the heart of the discussion about Great Britain leaving the European Union. In her closing statement for the “ITV Referendum Debate”, Gisella Stuart emphasizes the importance of taking back control above all else:

(47) “This is our last chance to take back control. […] We don’t have to choose between trade and democracy. Countries across the world trade with Europe without giving away permanent control. A vote to stay is dangerous. It means handing over more and more power to unelected elites and bureaucrats every year. We will be trapped in a system where we will be outvoted by countries which have the euro as their currency. We will not be able to control our borders and have a say in who has the right to live and work here. […] That’s why I’m saying to you: on 23 June vote Leave and take back control”. (Gisella Stuart on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:42:49-01:43:58) 60

From this text sample alone, a number of metaphors used to conceptualize the target domain CONTROL can be enumerated. First of all, the slogan “Take back control” in itself describes CONTROL as a physical object. Charteris-Black (2014: 202) explains that one of the functions of metaphor in political discourse is heuristic, that is, it simplifies abstract, complex and controversial issues in order to make them generally intelligibly to the audience. Image-based metaphors are particularly suitable to fulfil this function. Political, economic and social control at such a large, European-wide level is, indeed, a topic that is difficult to grasp for voters who are not experts in this field. Moreover, the short slogan “Take back control” does not even specify which precise issues the Leave campaign wants to regain control of, and is therefore an inherently fuzzy, ambivalent expression to use. For this reason, conceptualizing CONTROL as a physical object and evoking an image where the personified nation state takes back a lawful possession is a useful rhetorical device. While the ontological metaphor CONTROL IS A PHYSICAL OBJECT does not structure the target domain by highlighting some of its specific features, it implies that CONTROL is concrete enough to be grasped physically. This understanding of CONTROL is concise enough for a short, catchy slogan. Mio (1997: 103) elucidates: “Because of information-processing demands, people cannot pay attention to all aspects of political evidence. Therefore, something is needed to simplify decision-making, and metaphor and other shortcut devices (e.g. cognitive heuristics) address this need”. This ontological metaphor also gives rise to a multitude of verbs and verb phrases that either explicitly mention “hands” or refer to actions normally performed with hands in the corpus in order to describe the process of regaining control after Great Britain has made the decision to leave the European Union. Describing the large sums of money that Great Britain has to pay to the European Union, Michael Gove claims that precise numbers are not the most important aspects:

(48) “That money is controlled by the European Union and if we vote to leave, we can take back control of that money and we’re no longer in

the hands of people who may not always have our best interests at heart.” (Michael Gove on Sky News, 00:30:30 – 00:30:39)

Similarly, he argues that, “at the moment, control of our immigration policy is not in the hands of the British people” (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:33:49- 00:33:53) and that the British people have their destiny “in their hands” in the upcoming referendum (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:46:47-00:46:53). Conversely, further integration into the European Union, involves “further transfers of power away from this country”, as Boris Johnson argues (“ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:28:48-01:28:53). Another example are EU regulations which are described as being “imposed” on Britain (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:35:33-00:35:40). This verb also suggests a downwards motion from the sovereign EU to an obedient country, especially when the etymological roots are taken into consideration. These metaphorical expressions provide somewhat more structure than the slogan “Take back control”. If, as the expressions entail, CONTROL is a physical object small enough in size to be dealt with by human hands, the abstract target domain is also simplified in its complexity. The orientational metaphor that is best-known to form a mental picture for the concept CONTROL is CONTROL IS UP, which is also featured in the Master Metaphor List (Lakoff et al., 1991: 67). As can be gained from the example below, this kind of metaphor implies a hierarchy between the European Union and Great Britain rather than an alliance:

(49) “The only way that you can maintain support for migration and its benefits is if people feel that this country controls the numbers and controls who comes here at the moment. Under European Union Law there are criminals here that we can’t deport. There are terrorists here […] that we can’t prevent from coming in”. (Michael Gove on the “BBC Question Time Special”, 00:32:49-00:33:11)

Arguing for controlled immigration outside the European Union, Michael Gove uses the phrase “under the European Union Law” and suggests that power relations between the two institutions are measured by verticality. The entity which is in the higher position is mapped onto the more powerful entity, while the entity which is in the lower position is mapped onto the weaker entity, which is, in this case, Great Britain. Metaphorical expressions of this sort give rise to completely different entailments than the FAMILY metaphor where all members are seen to meet at eye level. Grady mentions (1997) this metaphor under the alternative name BEING IN CONTROL IS BEING ABOVE in regard to the relationships between caregivers and children. This general metaphor in the corpus is rooted in physical experience. Bodily size positively correlates with the control one holds over others. This early childhood experience carries over to a much larger experience of power relations between a country and a multi-country organization in the Brexit debate. Politicians of the Leave campaign envision a future in which Great Britain will regain its superior position and will, once more, be on top of the situation:

(50) “The only way we will ever get that back under control is if we vote Leave on Thursday.” (Andrea Leadsom on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:04:49-01:50:05)

There is an interplay between the desire for this superior position and immigration, which is represented as uncontrollable inrush. However, the metaphors used to describe this political issue have been discussed separately in the chapter on the target domain IMMIGRATION. Last but not least, subtypes of the event structure metaphor were used to envision Great Britain’s lack of control as a member of the European Union. Both Europe and Great Britain are seen as travelling on a path towards the future and their relationship is conceptualized as a vehicle. Control over this vehicle is not shared but remains in the hands of only one party. The vehicle of choice in the following utterance by Boris Johnson is a car:

(51) “They [the Remain side] say that we have absolutely no choice […] but to stay locked in the back of the EU car driven in the wrong direction going to a destination we do not want to go”. (Boris Johnson on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 1:45:24-1:45:35)

The PATH metaphor is a subtype of the larger conceptual metaphor POLITICAL ACTION AS SPATIAL MOVEMENT and has its roots in the integration process of the European Union, which some member states were more committed to than others. This resulted in the term “multispeed Europe” or “Europe of two speeds” in the media and political speeches, where Great Britain is seen as slow or even outside the common European path (Musolff, 2004: 59). It is worth noticing that Britain is still an active party in determining their future actions within this media discourse. While Germany accepted the concept of the multispeed Europe as an already practiced policy, Great Britain criticized Europe as travelling too fast or even heading towards disaster. Crucially, the PATH metaphors found in this corpus do not describe a shared European destination that Great Britain is travelling to as well. Instead, the instances remain focused on the individual country. In addition, the metaphorical image evoked by Boris Johnson in his closing statement on ITV has the audience envision the (personified) country as entirely powerless in the future course of the EU. The person locked in the trunk of the car may be aware of the crash their vehicle is going to suffer, but they cannot save their life because they decided to get into the car at some point in time. This scenario is indeed perfectly apt to show how Britain must take charge of the steering wheel, instead of weakly cowering in the back of a vehicle that is doomed. Boris Johnson has carefully selected a powerful, expressive metaphor to communicate his message. The conceptual metaphor THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A SUPPRESSOR can be regarded as the other side of the same coin. Michael Gove was accused of spreading lies by a member of the audience, particularly in regard to a canvas on public buses in Great Britain saying: “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave”. This number was highly contested by the interviewer Feisal Islam on Sky News and was again brought up in the debate

with the audience. In his response, Michael Gove frames the European Union as suppressor that has been hindering the British people from realizing their full potential:

(52) “[…] on our side, the Leave campaign, what we believe in is unlocking the potential of the British people and I think, John, that there are all sorts of reasons to believe that our country, the fifth largest economy in the world with the most impressive arm forces, with the best publicly funded health service, we have so much to offer. That is project hope”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:28:09-00:28:32)

In this example, Great Britain is depicted as caged by an organization that holds the power over it and does not allow it to realize its full potential. The metaphor entails that the influence of the European Union is entirely negative. Regulations and constrictions are highlighted while economic and social partnership and benefits are hidden. In the following example, a member of the audience also made use of the SUPPRESSOR metaphor. The European Union does not only constrain, but even “suffocate” the British people in her words. Again, the verb “impose” signifies a downward motion from the superior organization that acts from above.

(53) “I run a small business, employing ten local staff, and have been stifled by the raft of EU legislations that’s been imposed on me.” (member of the audience on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:08:31- 00:08:39)

Similarly, Petrica (2011) found that the European Union is characterized as a spanker or sodomizer in Malta. While the economic status of Malta is much weaker than Great Britain’s, the two countries have their insularity in common. In addition, neither of the countries is a founding member of the EU and they are, therefore, both seen as having less control in the organization.

While most conceptual metaphors used to characterise the European Union by the Leave campaign are serious in nature, there are a few instances of humorous metaphor use in the corpus. As Charteris-Black notes (2009: 106-107), humour is an important element in rhetoric. Laughter is a shared social experience that encourages the audience to see the speaker in a positive light. Humour works particularly well when speakers have to deal with an inhomogeneous audience, as is the case on the “BBC Great Debate” where half the audience supported the Leave campaign and the other half the Remain campaign. Humour “can both strengthen the support of followers and undermine the opposition of opponents by uniting them through an empathic response” (Charteris-Black, 2009: 106). In the following example, Andrea Leadsom reduces the tasks of the European Union to a grotesquely small level and earns laughter from her audience.

(54) “Most economies can agree free trade deals within a year or two. The European Union is taking ten years or never at all. Why? Because 28 member states cannot even organize a take-away-curry, let alone what they’re going to do on free trade with the rest of the world”. (Andrea Leadsom on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:30:42-00:31:03)

The next instance of metaphorical use, does not share the irony with Andrea Leadsom’s statement, but has the same entailments. The European Union is incapable of resolving issues that much smaller organizations can easily deal with. In both cases, its deficiency is caused by its size: 28 member states are unable to order their meal. In this instance, the European Union is explicitly named a “big unwieldy organization” by Michael Gove:

(55) “How could Iceland, how could Switzerland get trade deals with China when the European Union can’t? Because the European Union is a big bureaucratic, unwieldy organization that cannot forge new trade deals individual countries can”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:21:21-00:21:39)

Since the European Union is incapable of resolving tasks that individual countries can resolve, Great Britain is better off with without it. The metaphorical expressions analysed here, work in concert with the CONTROL metaphor discussed earlier. While being suppressed by a larger organization is in itself an unwanted situation, the motivation to “take back control”, as the Leave campaign stressed, is strengthened by the incapability of the European Union that has been asserted in the analysed statements.

3.7. The European Union as Destructive Force

The most negative conceptual metaphor the Leave campaign made use of during the Brexit debates was that of the EUROPEAN UNION AS A DESTRUCTIVE FORCE. In the following examples “destruction” and its consequences are explicitly mentioned by the politicians. In addition, Great Britain is constructed as a body politic that physically suffers from this treatment:

(56) “I'm just puzzled why you want to be allies with people in a union and institution that wishes to and has been prepared to inflict such pain”. (“Hilary Benn and Andrew Neill Interview”, 00:03:27- 00:03:34)

A specific subcase of the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE metaphor found in the corpus is the EUROPEAN UNION AS A JOB DESTROYING MACHINE or ENGINE. This expression was used six times by politicians of the Leave campaign, which is a fairly high frequency considering the limited scope of the corpus. The metaphor highlights certain aspects of a large organization that functions like an apparatus, but hides other aspects. The characterization of the EU as a mere machine implies that its workings proceed in an inhumane and unfeeling way. Since machines do not care about human well-being, negotiation with the European machine is futile. The machine-like European Union is juxtaposed with the vulnerable human body of Great Britain. Michael Gove makes use of this metaphor in the following examples:

(57) “I think that the truth about the European Union is that it is a job destroying machine”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:13:58- 00:14:00)

Michael Gove blames the youth unemployment in Southern European countries on their membership in the European Union and the single currency. Only a few moments later he repeats, addressing the interviewer:

(58) “Do not belittle the hardship that has been caused by the job destroying machine that is the European Union. […] Also, look at the facts of unemployment in Southern Europe: youth unemployment in Greece is nearly 50%, in Spain it is 40%. Now these are facts, and these facts are also a story of human misery. […] Those people in Greece and Spain who are suffering so much as a result of the European Union are coming here”. (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:15:17-00:15:48)

When a young man in the audience asked a question on employment, Michael Gove also pointed out that the problem has largely been caused by migrants from Southern European countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain and proceeds to call the European Union “a job destroying machine“ and “a tragedy” for Great Britain (Michael Gove on the “BBC Question Time Special”, 00:21:40-00:21:56). Michael Gove is not the only politician in the Leave campaign who characterizes the European Union as “a job destroying machine”. Asked by Andrew Neill how he could claim that migrants were taking away British jobs when employment rates were in truth at a record level, Nigel Farage answered:

(59) “It’s actually destroying the Baltic States. I mean, you take something like Lithuania who’ve lost one third of their population since they joined the European Union, so that’s not good for them”. (“Nigel Farage and Andrew Neill Interview”, 00:09:20-00:09:30)

Later in the month, Boris Johnson repeated this metaphor in the “BBC Great Debate” twice, using Southern European countries as deterring example: 68

(60) “The European Union, I’m afraid, is a job destroying engine. You can see it across Europe and you can see it, alas, in this country as well”. (Boris Johnson on the “BBC Great Debate”, 00:28:13-00:28:21) (61) “Remember what John Major said about the single currency: He said it had all the quaintness and implausibility of a rain dance. Look where it is now, destroying jobs across the European Union”. (Boris Johnson on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:20:14-01:20:27)

Since no evidence of this metaphor was identified in the EUROMETA corpus by Musolff and his colleagues (2004, 2016), it can be assumed that this is the most recently developed metaphor in the corpus. Of all the metaphors used to conceptualize the European Union it is also the most negative. The identification of a scapegoat in times of political and economic distress has often been offered as a solution for social problems in history (Charteris-Black, 2009: 100). Political parties that argue for continued membership in the European Union are more likely to use metaphors that are common in this organization in general, such as the FAMILY or HOUSE metaphors (Musolff, 2004). Political parties that want to leave the European Union, on the other hand, are overall more likely to invent original metaphors in the debates since none of the conventional metaphors are appropriate to support their argument (Petrica, 2011: 151). Some of the DESTRUCTION metaphors also refer explicitly to the body politic of Great Britain and are, hence, manifested as physical illnesses. Earliest traces of the NATION STATE AS A BODY can be found in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Their respective works, Πολιτεία and Τίμαιος, Πολιτικά and De motu animalium make use of this conceptual metaphor. In Livius’ Ab Urbe condita and Plutarch’s Vitae parallelae, in the section about Coriolanus, the senate is characterized as the belly of the body politic. Although it receives all the food and remains idle, it is unwise for the other body parts, i.e. the plebeians, to revolt against the belly since they would cut off their only source of nourishment. This metaphor entails that the revolt against the senate is doomed. The tale of the belly is included, most famously, in Shakespeare’s tragedy Coriolanus. Throughout history, the metaphor of the body politic has been drawn on by philosophers and

politicians. Musolff (2016) gives an overview of how the metaphor of the body politic is continued in German and British discourse about EU politics. In the 12th century, John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, ascribed the duty to remove any “illness and blemishes” to the head, i.e. the prince. He takes a radical approach to curing illness in the body politic: “Indeed, neither the ears nor the tongue nor whatever else subsists within the body of the republic is safe if it revolts against the soul for whose sake the eyes themselves are gouged out” (John of Salisbury, 1990: 140-141)1. In the following examples, the European Union is characterized as such a diseased body part which consequently puts the whole body politic at risk. Author Tony Parsons, who had previously declared he would support Nigel Farage’s UKIP party in the upcoming election, answered when asked whether immigration was part of the reason why he stood on the Leave side of the argument:

(62) “We love our country. And I have not heard one argument about how if we’re too timid, if we’re too frightened, too small to leave this rotting carbuncle of the European Union, how do we accommodate three million people?” (Tony Parsons on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:08:18-01:08:39)

Susan Sontag has investigated the polemical use of disease metaphors historically from early political theorists like Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes to totalitarian movements, like Hitler’s depiction of the Jews as syphilitic and cancerous. She condenses her findings: “Disease imagery is used to express concern for social order, and health is something everyone is presumed to know about” (1991: 73). In the light of the history of the disease metaphor, which Tony Parsons employs in this example, his judgement of the European Union seems particularly harsh:

1 He bases his claim on the authority of the New Testament: “If your eye or your foot offend you, root it out and cast it away from you” (Mt. 18.9).

(63) “I honestly believe that we need to set ourselves free from this rotten, corrupt bureaucratic institution (…)”. (Tony Parsons on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:37:05-01:37:18) (64) “Of course we’ll still be in all the international bodies. We’ll be part of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the UN Security Council, all these things, but what we will not be part of is a sclerotic creature that had a noble idea in the 1950s that demands supremacy of its laws”. (Gisela Stuart on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:18:52-01:19:09)

Tony Parsons argues that the European Union is decaying like a live organism. Its sickness spoils the otherwise healthy body politic of Great Britain. In Gisela Stuart’s words, the body politic of Great Britain is still agile while the European Union has become immobile because it suffers from sclerosis. The frame that both these metaphorical expressions evoke sees the country as merely removing the parts of its body that harm the rest with its sickness. In contrast to the CONTROL metaphors, Great Britain does not have to exert much effort to break free from a sick organization that is doomed anyway. In a single instance in the corpus, David Cameron demonstrates that the same metaphor, THE NATION STATE AS A BODY, can also be used for the purposes of the Remain campaign. He characterizes Brexit as a “self-inflicted wound” for the country:

(65) “If we were to get out of the single market, we’d see fewer jobs in the car industry, we'd see less investment in our country. That would be a self-inflicted wound for Britain”. (David Cameron on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:08:45-00:08:53)

In this example, the body politic is sickened by the opposite action, namely removing, that is leaving, the European Union. This shows that one and the same conceptual metaphor can be used for a variety of purposes.

3.8. Metonymies

Scholars disagree on whether metonymy can be treated as a subtype of metaphor (Genette, 1980; Levin, 1977; Lodge, 1977; Searle, 1979) or is governed by independent principles (Jakobson, 1971; Bredin, 1984). More recently, Barcelona (2003b) has proposed that metaphors are typically based on one or more metonymic mappings. What puts metonymy in the close vicinity of metaphor, however, is its function as a general cognitive principle, which is why it has been included in this thesis. As Gibbs argues (1999: 62), “our ability to draw metonymic inferences, where we infer wholes from parts or parts from wholes, is one of the special characteristics of the poetics of mind”. Instances of an idealized cognitive principle (ICP), according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 35-41), are governed by a general principle such as PLACE FOR INSTITUTION. This ICP accounts for the most frequently used metonymy in the corpus: BRUSSELS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION. Out of the 37 instances where Brussels was mentioned in the corpus, 31 were judged to be metonymic in use. This means that a larger concept than just the geographic centre of administration for the European Union was referred to, like in the following examples:

(66) “They say we have no choice but to bow down to Brussels”. (Boris Johnson on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:42:13-01:42:23) (67) “Why has this government and the previous government let Brussels interfere so much that we’re now at the point of voting to stay in or out of Europe?” (member of the audience on the “BBC Question Time Special with David Cameron”, 00:25:58-00:26:08) (68) “It’s curious to hear this from Nicola Sturgeon because she’s obviously more keen to be ruled by Brussels than she is to be by Westminster politicians”. (Boris Johnson on the “ITV Referendum Debate”, 01:20:15-01:20:22)

Here, a place is drawn as a domineering person and those politicians obeying its rules and legislations as disloyal to Britain. Like Warren argues (2004: 112), in metonymy “the speaker is focusing more on an attribute of an entity than the entity itself”. Metonymy can thus be seen as a focusing device in rhetoric by highlighting formal, functional and ontological characteristics. In addition, the PART-WHOLE grasping concepts also facilitate the comprehension of complex concepts (Cislaru, 2007: 108). Centres of power are often metonymized. Thus, we can talk about “Washington” or “the White House” to refer to the administration of the US as a whole. In the corpus at hand, “Downing Street” was also used metonymically to refer to the entire British administration, not only the residence of the current prime minister (Michael Gove on “EU: In or Out?”, 00:44:31- 00:44:35). The BRUSSELS metonymy allows the Leave campaign to reduce the complexity, size and number of member states considerably to the centre of administration. The Remain campaign attempted to counter by focusing on the cooperative aspect of the European Union employing a table metonymy:

(69) “I’m passionate about the fact that we’re sat around the table with 27 other countries, eleven of which a quarter of a century ago were on the other side of the iron curtain, six of which had nuclear weapons on their soil pointing right here. Today they’re our friends and our neighbours”. (Tim Farron on the “BBC Great Debate”, 01:35:55- 01:36:06)

Arguably this metonymy could also be categorized as a metaphor (EUROPEAN COOPERATION AS A TABLE), but as explained above, there is a continuum rather than a strict distinction between the two phenomena. If it is assumed that a TABLE is part of the domain of political cooperation, then the mapping remains within the same domain and we are talking about a metonymy.

4. Metaphor in Second Language Learning

4.1. Metaphorical Competence

In the wake of Lakoff and Johnson’s seminal study (1980), many researchers have argued that activities and tasks that raise students’ awareness of metaphor and metonymy aid second language learning (e.g. Holme, 2004; Lazar, 1996, 2003; Littlemore & Low, 2006; Rundell, 2001). As has been established early on in this thesis, metaphor is a pervasive occurrence in every language due to the way the human mind and physical brain work. Thus, students of a foreign language necessarily encounter metaphors when developing any of the four language skills, speaking, listening, reading and writing, and learning grammar or vocabulary. It does not come as a surprise, then, that metaphorical language can be a major challenge to them. In a study with international students whose first language was not English, Littlemore, Chen, Koester and Barnden (2011) determined that 42% of the words and phrases these students found difficult to understand were used metaphorically. This finding takes on even greater significance when we take into consideration that metaphorical language is commonly used to convey knowledge and new information by lecturers (Low, Littlemore & Koester, 2008). In another study, 90% of the times oversea students were unable to comprehend the meaning of the university lecturer the confusion was caused by misinterpretation of metaphorical language (Littlemore, 2001b). This often meant that the students could not understand the most significant points of the lectures or the lecturer’s attitude in regard to the topic. Presumably, younger language students aged ten to 19 will be faced with metaphorical language to a similar extend during their school years. In addition, they must be prepared for their university education or encounters with native speakers in their future careers. Understanding and producing metaphors in appropriate ways is therefore a skill students have to acquire in the language learning classroom. This is also referred to as metaphoric competence (Littlemore, 2001a) or, alternatively, as metaphorical competence in the literature. In this thesis, the latter term will be used following Azuma (2004) and Danesi (1993).

Scholars are in agreement about the significance of metaphorical competence for second language learners. Danesi (1980) claims “the true sign that the learner has developed communicative proficiency is the ability to metaphorize in the target language” (1986: 9). Andreou and Galantomos (2008) have designed a conceptual syllabus to raise metaphorical awareness in students. But overall, scholars disagree on what exactly constitutes metaphorical competence. Littlemore (2001a: 461) defines it as consisting of four components: (a) the originality of metaphor production, (b) the fluency of metaphor interpretation, (c) the ability to find meaning in metaphor, and (d) the speed in finding meaning in metaphor. Littlemore and Low (2006: 79) later describe metaphorical competence as “an individual’s ability to understand and produce metaphors”. Azuma (2004) follows this broad definition on the whole, but importantly adds a deeper, cognitive level to it. Not only does metaphorical competence include students’ (a) ability to recognize metaphorical expressions in reading and listening and (b) to use them in their speaking and writing of their L2, but also (c) to understand the underlying concepts behind the metaphorical expressions in both their L1 and their L2 (2004: 52). The notion of metaphorical competence is also closely connected to the notion of conceptual fluency. Conceptual fluency is a somewhat broader term than metaphorical competence and refers to the ability to make use of the conceptual- semantic system of a language in order to systematically produce all kinds of figurative speech, including metaphor (Danesi 2016: 146). Conceptual fluency was defined as an essential feature of native-speaker competence by Danesi (1993). So-called conceptual errors are often the result of students choosing the wrong source domain in forming a metaphor (Danesi, 2008). Participants in Danesi’s study (2008) who had been educated to acquire the conceptual system of the target language were able to use figurative language more frequently and correctly. Without the explicit teaching of metaphors and their underlying concepts, he argues, students either avoid figurative language or fail to convey their ideas due to L1 interference. His findings also suggest that metaphorical competence is, indeed, teachable although more research is needed to determine this issue.

4.1.1. Lesson Plan

The following lesson plan is designed for a 7th grade class of around 25 students. Therefore, language learners can be expected to be on a B1+ language level, progressing towards a B2 level for their final exams. Accordingly, the goal for students is to passively understand “extended speech and lectures and follow even complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar”, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR (Council of Europe, 2011: 27). In this lesson plan, students will be confronted with excerpts from newspaper articles, which they will be required to understand in full at the B2 level (ibid.: 27). Although the CEFR does not specifically mention control of metaphors, the types of spoken and written discourse pointed out in the “can do” descriptors presuppose an understanding of metaphorical language as has been established above. Moreover, the CEFR mentions metaphor in connection with lexical competence, i.e. “knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language” (ibid.: 110). Raising students’ metaphorical awareness will therefore impact both vocabulary range and vocabulary control (ibid.: 112). The aim of this lesson is to raise students’ awareness on the use of metaphorical phrases in contexts where it might not be expected in the first place. This is why the lesson starts off with collecting students’ preliminary knowledge on what metaphors are and where they occur and, thus, activate top-down processing. Most likely, students will have encountered metaphors in a poetic context, particularly in their first language lessons. Maybe, they can come up with an example of metaphors they have encountered in a literature class. In addition, metaphor should be delineated from other rhetorical devices that it might be confused with, such as simile, hyperbole, metonymy etc. Due to the pervasiveness of metaphor, a variety of communicative contexts could be chosen to train metaphorical competence. But since the first two sections of the thesis focused on a political context, this theme will be carried on into the lesson plan.

Next, students learn to differentiate between literal and metaphorical language use by means of a variety of sentences taken from the British National Corpus which show the metaphorical and literal use of the verb “to die”. Besides examples that are clearly instance of either figurative or literal language use, there are some more difficult examples worth discussing, such as “the giggles died down”. In the main activity, students receive a worksheet with a variety of headlines and excerpts from different newspaper articles on immigration. They are asked to highlight any metaphorically used words in groups of threes or fours. Once they are finished, the words are collected and categorized on the blackboard. Three source domains are available to them: WATER, NATURAL DISASTER, and OTHER. The overlaps in the graphical organizer below show students that some metaphorical expressions can be part of more than one source domain. Any questions on whether words are actually used metaphorically and how to group them will be discussed in plenum. Students will also be asked whether the same metaphors are used in their mother tongue or whether they can think of other metaphors in order to train intercultural competence. This discussion will obviously be enriched by students whose first language is not German or not exclusively German. Last but not least, the students’ preliminary notions of metaphor from the beginning of the class will be revisited and possibly adapted.

Table 3: Lesson Plan to train metaphorical competence

Grade: 7th grade Number of students: about 25 Language level: B1+ Overall aim: develop metaphorical competence Time: 50 min

Time Activity Aims Materials needed

5 min Students are introduced to the topic of this lesson -Activate knowledge students blackboard and asked what they know about metaphors: already have on the subject. -What is a metaphor? -Activate top-down processing. -Where do you find metaphors? -Can you think of an example? Their answers are collected on the blackboard and revisited at the end of the lesson.

5 min Students receive a worksheet on metaphorical and -Develop students’ ability to Worksheet (4.1.2.): literal use of the verb “die” and apply the recognize metaphorical Differentiate between knowledge of metaphors they have just collected. expressions in their reading and metaphorical and literal use

Possible questions that arise are discussed in writing. plenum. -Clarify any questions on what constitutes a metaphor.

15 min Students receive the worksheet with headlines and -Further develop students’ Worksheet (4.1.3.): Newspaper extracts from different newspaper articles. ability to recognize headlines and extracts Working in pairs of three or four people, they metaphorical expressions. highlight any metaphorical expressions on the -Show that metaphors do not sheet. They know that they will have to share their only occur in poetic contexts. results with the rest of the class in the next activity.

15 min Students are asked to categorize the metaphorically -Learn to categorize metaphors Graphical Organizer (4.1.4.) used words they identified according to the three according to their source on the blackboard source domains on the blackboard: WATER, domains. NATURAL DISASTER, and OTHER. Again, questions -Develop some degree of as to categorization will be discussed. fluency in metaphor interpretation.

5 min Students are asked to compare the metaphors they -Understand the underlying none identified with their expectations and their L1: concepts of metaphors both in -Would you have expected these metaphors to play their L1 and in their L2. a role in discourse about migration? - Develop intercultural

-What impact do these metaphors have on the competence. issue? -Encourage critical thinking. -Can you think of any other metaphors used in reference to migration? -Does German make use of the same metaphors or others?

5min The findings from this lesson are contrasted with Round-off none the initial assumptions students had on metaphor. The aim is to show that metaphors are much more frequent in many contexts than often assumed.

4.1.2. Differentiating between Literal and Metaphorical Use

The literal meaning of the verb die is “to cease to live”, but it can also be used in a metaphorical or non-literal way. In the following sentences die is used in both sentences. Try to select and mark the sentences where die is not used literally.

Many of them may be subject of discussion so think about reasons why a particular usage is metaphorical or not.

(1) Many people are dying with great indignity and with great suffering,' said John Oliver, general secretary of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. (2) This was a love worth dying for, at last. (3) I'm dying for some punch. My throat's like sandpaper,' Maggie said. (4) Most of these errors would have been fatal to the survival of the organism or its ability to reproduce. Such errors would not be passed on to future generations but would die out. (5) Given a meatless diet [a cat] will rapidly become ill and will then die a painful death. A cat is a carnivore and if it is to be kept as a pet it must be given a carnivorous diet. (6) Today, I would die for one of Mrs. Poulard's omelettes. (7) Mrs. Fry shook [their hands] gingerly and said,' You must be dying for something to eat, both of you. We usually eat at seven, but we waited for you - I've got a casserole in the oven.' (8) Tell Elizabeth? I would die of shame! (9) It's what the actors do best. They have to exploit whatever talent is given to them, and their talent is dying. They can die heroically, comically, ironically, slowly, suddenly, disgustingly, charmingly, or from a great height. (10) The giggles die down as she adds: I'm already depressed about it.

4.1.3. Newspaper Articles

“BRITAIN was warned last night it faces a massive benefits bill to pay for the looming influx of immigrants, including gypsies, from eastern Europe”. (The Express , February 9, How Climate Change is 2004) Behind the Surge of Migrants to Europe

“Even as Europe wrestles “you have got a swarm of over how to absorb the people coming across the migrant tide, experts warn Mediterranean, seeking a that the flood is likely to get better life, wanting to worse as climate change come to Britain because becomes a driving factor” Britain has got jobs, it’s (Times, September 7, 2015) got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to Migrants flood live”. (The Guardian trains in News, July 30, 2015) desperate bid to leave Italy

As Italy struggles to cope with the Mediterranean migration crisis, its UN expects Alpine region of thousands of South Tyrol is refugees to facing an flood Europe increasing stream of migrants who try Forget the Greek Tens of thousands of new crisis or Britain's refugees will swarm into Europe in the coming days, referendum, this the UN warned Tuesday — tidal wave of as those who survived the migrants could be harrowing trip across the the biggest threat Mediterranean in Financially smugglers’ rickety boats to Europe since the Strapped Greece shared horror stories of war (Daily Mail, June their desperate voyages. 26, 2015) Struggles With Flood (New York Post, of Refugees (Wall Street September 9, 2015) Journal, August 30, 2015) 82

4.1.4. Graphical Organizer

NATURAL WATER DISASTER

OTHER METAPHORS

4.1.5. Possible Solution

wrestle

influx, absorb, WATER tidal looming wave NATURAL DISASTER flood tide, threat to face stream surge struggle

OTHER METAPHORS swarm (n.)

swarm (v.)

4.2. Organizing Lexis

One particularly well-researched area of metaphor application in the classroom is vocabulary learning. One of the strategies to successfully memorize vocabulary is to organize it somehow, rather than learning it in a random list (Sökmen, 1997). The small sets of related words that students have already acquired can later be used as the foundation for further acquisition of words since they have a framework to connect them to. In addition to more traditional organizing principles such as “topic”, “situation” and “narration”, Lewis (1997: 67-85) also suggests grouping lexis according to underlying conceptual metaphors. Contrary to traditional views, research in cognitive linguistics since the 1980s suggests that idiomatic language does not simply consist of dead metaphors and is, in fact, compositional. This entails that learners of a language parse these lexical items into their individual constituents which they can glean meaning from (Gibbs, 1990; Gibbs & O’Brien, 1990; Crutchley, 2007). Speakers thus process the idiomatic expression “to let off steam”, for instance, through decomposition and connect the verb and the object to their literal references, “release” and “anger”, respectively (Gibbs & O’Brien, 1990). Phrasal verbs are one instance of metaphorically motivated lexis that can be decomposed into orientational metaphors and so-called light verbs (Stefanowitch & Gries, 2005). The orientational metaphor COMPLETION IS UP in combination with a variety of verbs gives rise to the linguistic expressions “give up”, “wind up”, “eat up” and others. Their stress is on the adverbial part which provides a rich mental imagery in contrast to the verb that conveys little schematic content (Stefanowitch & Gries, 2005). According to the cognitive approach to teaching and learning phrasal verbs, students whose awareness for underlying orientational metaphors is raised are able to create mental generalizations in their lexicon. This raised metaphorical awareness is a much more efficient learning strategy than mere memorization or rote learning. The value of organizing phrasal verbs through orientational metaphors in the EFL classroom was tested by Kövecses and Szabó (1996) in an experiment that focused on phrasal verbs with “up” and “down”. The first language of all students in the study was Hungarian. The first group of students was instructed to 85

study the phrasal verbs with the aid of their underlying conceptual metaphors (such as MORE IS UP and HAPPY IS UP). The second group of students was given the translation of the phrasal verbs in their L1 instead. The test immediately following the study period showed that the first group outperformed the latter by almost 9%. Boers (2000) also compared the performance of two groups of students who had been asked to study 26 phrasal verbs either via the variety of conceptual metaphors they expressed or a number of synonyms. Again, the group of students which had used conceptual metaphors as organizing principle significantly outperformed the other group in the immediate post-test. In addition to providing students with a useful organizing principle, the outcome of both studies is likely to be the result of dual coding (Pavio, 1986). The conceptual metaphors emphasize the figurative nature of the phrasal verbs and enable students to connect the verbal input with a visual input. This association facilitates the recollection of the lexemes by offering students “an additional access point” through the image (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009: 79). These findings can be implemented in the EFL classroom by starting with a manageable number of phrasal verbs and subsuming them under a small number of conceptual metaphors. Students can gradually extend this list by adding new lexical items under the appropriate heading. The cognitive effort involved when students themselves have to group the phrasal verbs will support memorization (Schmitt, 2008). However, findings by Condon (2008) suggest that explicit reference to the underlying conceptual metaphors is required since students do not automatically expand on the metaphorical bases that their teachers have established. This implies that teachers have to continuously remind students to connect the lexical target items to the underlying metaphors and cannot rely on students to pick up the strategy by default. A helpful reference book for teachers to create a list of phrasal verbs is Macmillan’s Phrasal Verbs Plus (2005) which takes conceptual metaphor theory into consideration and argues that understanding the metaphor behind phrasal verbs can facilitate students’ vocabulary comprehension and retention. The following list is modelled after Boers and Lindstromberg (2009: 98), but includes only phrasal verbs taken from the “BBC Great Debate” on the Brexit referendum:

Phrasal Verbs grouped according to metaphor themes:

MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN cut down expenses; hold down wages; drive down wages; bring down migration; prices will go up; speed up accession; ACTIVE IS UP; INACTIVE IS DOWN

put up the barriers to migrants; to be up for; back up a case; stand up for democracy; GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN talk someone down; run down our city; VISIBILE IS OUT to point out; to put out a list;

PROBLEMS ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS walk away from; kick somebody out; get out of something; opt out of something;

Studies that deal with metaphorical expressions instead of phrasal verbs, however, also indicate that conceptual metaphors are not merely an organizing principle as good as any other. Instead, they surpass other options. Students in a study (Boers, 2000) were given a list of 18 well-known metaphorical expressions describing anger, as listed by Kövecses (1990). They were either grouped under their conceptual metaphors (e.g. ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER or ANGER IS FIRE) or according to the intensity of the action (e.g. “blow up at someone” vs. “simmer down”) or character traits described (“a ferocious temper”). Therefore, both groups of students were presented with an equal measure of structure in their target lexis. Nevertheless, in the following gap-filling test the group that had been utilizing the metaphor headings achieved much better results. As Hoang (2014: 4) elucidates, instruction based on conceptual metaphor theory “relies on the interactive properties between the source and target domains of metaphors and gives students a rationale to ponder upon why the phrases mean what they mean, which likely explains the learning gain”. Designing pragmatic sets of lexical items on the other hand (such as sets of near synonyms or antonyms) has been found to be an unhelpful vocabulary learning strategy (Nation, 2000).

Early research on the influence of metaphor on learning suggests that it can serve as a mnemonic device, evoking richer images than literal language and facilitating the recall of information. In addition, metaphor accesses suitable conceptual frameworks which allow new knowledge to be integrated into existing mental schemas in the mind (Gibbs 1994: 129-134). In the following section, two exercises that focus on organizing lexis according to conceptual metaphors will be presented. No lesson plan was created because these kinds of exercises should be incorporated continuously into vocabulary teaching. In addition, an evaluation sheet that students can use to reflect on the method and decide whether and how to use the exercises in their future language learning process was added. Teaching students this kind of vocabulary learning strategy is in line with the Austrian Curriculum for foreign languages (2004: 1), which postulates that school should prepare students for life- long, autonomous learning: “Der Fremdsprachenunterricht hat die Aufgabe, den Schülerinnen und Schülern ein breites Spektrum an Sprachlernstrategien für den weiteren selbstständigen Spracherwerb im Sinne des lebensbegleitenden autonomen Sprachenlernens zu erschließen. Möglichkeiten zur Selbstevaluation sind dabei besonders zu berücksichtigen”. The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2011: 106-107), too, counts such study skills as an essential component of foreign language competence.

4.2.1. Idioms

The following exercise adopted from Boers and Lindstromberg (2008) organizes idioms according to the source domain they arise from. As Boers and Stengers determined in a corpus-based study (2008: 376), some of the most frequently used source domains include (a) vehicles & travelling, (b) war & aggression, and (c) games & sports, all of which will be used in the following exercise. Other source domains that could be selected include fauna & flora, food & cooking, clothes & adornment etc., which are also found to be productive in the English language. Next, teachers have to decide how many idioms students can realistically learn in the course of one lesson. Rob Waring suggests on his website that

efficient learning strategies can enable students to learn as many as 30 to 40 words per hour. More moderately, O’Dell and McCarthy (1997; 2001) suggest that 15 to 18 words per lesson should be a more realistic target. Depending on the consequent amount of practice, ten to twelve of these words will be retained in the students’ productive vocabulary. For this reason, 15 idioms were chosen for this exercise. Of course, the exercise could be expanded at a later point in time by adding new idioms that arise from the same source domains to the organizer, once students have established a solid basis. Besides the idiom, an explanation taken from the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms (Ayto, 2009) and an example sentence, the cards for the teacher also include the etymology of the phrase if a relevant one exists. The origin of more transparent idioms, such as “at the crossroads”, is not included in the cards. Students will receive the same cards without the etymology in the last row. Here, the idioms are categorized according to the source domains, but obviously students will be given a jumbled pack of cards.

a) Vehicles & Travelling show someone the ropes be thoroughly acquainted with the way something is done “He has been working in this company for 60 years and knows the ropes to everything.” In its literal sense, this expression goes back to the days of sailing ships, when skill handling ropes was essential for any sailor. The idiom is found in various forms, from the mid-19th century onwards, e.g. “learn” or “understand the ropes” and “show” or “teach someone the ropes”.

all hands on deck every member of a team

“It was all hands on deck to finish the project on time.”

An order to every member of a ship's crew to report to the deck immediately, usually in an emergency. “All hands on deck” or “all hands to the pumps”, in addition to their literal shipboard senses, are also used to indicate that all members of a team are required to be involved.

Following a fixed (especially tedious or in a rut dreary) pattern of behaviour that is difficult to change

“After ten years in the same job, she said she felt like being stuck in a rut.”

The “rut”, in this expression, is the deep groove worn by a wheel travelling many times along the same track.

Gradually grow in momentum, power pick up steam and influence

“The election campaign is picking up steam”.

At a critical point when decisions at the crossroads with far reaching consequences must be made. “After finishing her degree she was standing at the crossroads, wondering which way to turn”.

Used since 1795 in figurative sense of "a turning point, a moment of decision

(a) War & Aggression hit the ground running Start something and proceed at a fast pace with enthusiasm

“I like to prepare my to-do-list the night before so that I can hit the ground running in the morning”. This late 20th-century expression achieved the status of a cliché in the 1990s. It seems likely to refer to military personnel disembarking rapidly from a helicopter, though it cannot be definitely traced back to any 20th century war. (Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, 2004: 144)

fight a losing battle/ an Try hard at something when there is no chance that you will win/ struggle uphill battle against unfavourable circumstances “She was fighting a losing battle in the argument: He would never change his mind on the subject”. “Unless you have a goal your learning will be an uphill struggle.”

with flying colours With distinction “If he had only studied a little bit, he would have passed his exam with flying colours”. Formerly, in military contexts, flying colours meant having the regimental flag flying as a sign of success or victory; I conquered army usually had to lower (or strike) its colours. (Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, 2004: 113)

Conform with others or with accepted fall into line behaviour

“Most countries have signed the treaty, but some are reluctant to fall into line.”

This phrase originally referred to soldiers arranging themselves into military formation. (Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, 2004: 101)

suffer damage or harm inadvertently as be caught in the crossfire the result of a fight between two other people or groups

“During a divorce, kids often get caught in the crossfire”.

The literal sense of the phrase, in a military context, is 'be trapped (and possibly killed) by being between two opposing sides who are shooting at each other. (Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, 2004: 66)

(b) Games & Sports

Act before the proper or the appropriate jump the gun time “Surely it’s jumping the gun to buy the ring before you even asked her to marry you?”

In athletics, a competitor who jumps the gun sets off before the starting pistol has been fired. The expression appears in the early 20th century as beat the gun.

(especially of winning) easily and hands down decisively

“Nigel always won hands down easily in any argument.”

Originally a horse-racing expression, win hands down meant that a jockey was so certain of victory in the closing stages of a race that he could lower his hands, thereby relaxing his hold on the reins and ceasing to I urge on his horse.

a situation in which someone attempts a race against time to do or complete something before a particular time or before something else happens “His parents face a race against time as they try to raise the money necessary for his treatment”.

give it your best shot Try your hardest

“If you give it your best shot, you might make it to the finals”.

This expression employs shot in the sense of “attempt,” a usage dating from the mid-1700s.

get (back) into the swing of Get used to (or return to) being easy and relaxed about an activity or routine things you are engaged in “It will probably take her a month working at her new job until she gets into the full swing of things.” The expression dates back to the mid-1800s and alludes to the vigour of a swinging body in tennis.

Games & Sports War & Aggression

Vehicles & Travelling

4.2.2. Phrasal Verbs

The following exercise is based on Ruzka-Ostyn’s Word Power (2003) in which she has organized a vast number of phrasal verbs according to the stereotypical meaning of the preposition, such as IN as “being inside or entering a container”. She argues that awareness of metaphors allows us to readily understand the many expressions they’re based on and, hence, encourages students to group phrasal verbs accordingly in their vocabulary learning (2003: 7). Every exercise is made more comprehensible with a drawing, which represents the mental image schema of the spatial relation expressed by the preposition. Students who complete the following exercise familiarize themselves with the more concrete meaning of the preposition “in” and then move on to discover that containers can also be abstract. Situations and circumstances are also regarded as containers.

IN: Situations and circumstances are viewed as containers

Choose the appropriate phrasal verb from the bank to fit the sentences below. Adapt the tense and voice as needed. fall in – swear in – zero in on – trade in – throw in – cram in – step in – give in – tune in – sign in – join in – listen in –turn in

(1) The president of the United States ...... this week.

(2) The speaker cleverly ...... to the growing frustration of the

audience.

(3) Did you know Mary ...... in love with John?

(4) If you want to keep up your English , ...... regularly to the BBC.

(5) Participants are asked to ...... when they arrive, so that we know

who is staying here.

(6) The newly arrived children asked the others if they could ......

(7) Our car is so old now, that we’ll have to . . . . . it ...... to get a new

one.

(8) After hours of begging, their father finally ...... and promised them

a trip to the amusement park.

(9) We ...... as much sightseeing as possible on our trip to

New York.

(10) I couldn’t find anyone to ...... for me so that I could take a break

from my caregiving duties.

(11) He managed to ...... a few words before he was interrupted

again.

Glossary: (1) sworn in: promised in an official ceremony to respect the laws of the country, (2) zeroed in on: focus on, (3) fell in: develop romantic feelings for, (4) tune in: listen to (5) sign in: make a record of your arrival, (6) join in: participate in the game, (7) trade in: sell the car as partial payment for a new one, (8) give in: yield under insistence, (9) cram in: to make a special effort although there is hardly enough time,(10)step in: find a replacement, (11) throw in: to say a few words

4.2.3. Evaluation Sheet

How helpful do I find this method in memorizing vocabulary?

5 minutes Around 10 More than How much time does it take me to use this or less minutes 10 minutes method in my vocabulary learning?

No. Yes, with Yes, some more absolutely. Could I use this method without the help of practice. my teacher?

Are there any materials needed for the method (dictionary, textbook, internet etc.)? If yes, which?

Would I like to change or adapt this method somehow? If so, how?

5. Conclusion

This thesis has analysed the metaphorical expressions used in nine television debates on the EU referendum in Great Britain on 23 June 2016. After defining metaphor as a cognitive and linguistic device that shapes the human mind, the theoretical approach was applied to an authentic set of linguistic data. The results presented in the second part of the thesis show that the target domain CONTROL was one of the most significant subjects of the debate. As the Leave campaign’s slogan “Take back control” already conveys, CONTROL is conceptualized as a physical object that can easily be transferred from the EU administration to the British government. In addition, the orientational metaphor CONTROL IS UP was used to add a positive evaluation to the goal the Leave side set. The conceptualization of BRITAIN AS A CONTAINER, which is manifested in the blended word form “Brexit”, suggests that nations are clearly delineated entities that can easily close themselves off against external threats, such as immigration. What is more, it conjured up a black and white image of membership, which renders David Cameron’s argument of Britain having a special status within the European Union futile. Simultaneously, a negative image of the European Union is drawn by supporters of the Leave side. Firstly, the European Union is never understood as a family member in the debates, which would be expected in discussions about a large, multi-national organization. Secondly, HOUSE metaphors are used to demonstrate Britain’s missing participation in constructing common rules. At its most extreme, the discussion depicts the European Union as a DESTRUCTIVE FORCE that is responsible for large-scale unemployment in Southern European countries and overwhelming pressure on British resources. This thesis does not take a therapeutic stance, i.e. it does not argue that voters must be protected from manipulative language use of politicians. Since there is empirical proof, however, that metaphor has a much more fundamental function than stylistic embellishment, the results of this study are assumed to have impacted and persuaded voters to some extent. Therefore, an awareness of the metaphors that can influence human thought is crucial for voters and scholars reviewing the EU referendum alike. 98

In addition to frequency, the thesis also took other factors of metaphorical strength into account. Metaphorical expressions are particularly strong when they conjure up vivid mental images. Such expressions were rare but all the more salient in the corpus. General metaphorical expressions, on the other hand, provide far less structure and have a far more subtle conceptualizing effect on our minds. The EU IS A CONTAINER metaphor that gives rise to expressions, such as “Brexit” and “being inside” or “ being outside the EU”, is difficult to detect in everyday speech, yet the implications it brings undoubtedly have a strong impact on the Brexit debate. What is more, these general metaphors occur with a much higher frequency than strong metaphorical expressions. The CONTAINER metaphor even preserves a monopoly on how to conceptualize Brexit. No other metaphors to talk about Britain’s “leaving” the European Union were found in the corpus. Since this study only worked with a very limited corpus, the findings can only be seen as indicative of typical language use in the given context. A larger set of linguistic data would be needed to determine the frequency and the centrality of the conceptual metaphors in the Brexit debate. In addition, a larger corpus that extends over a longer period of time could trace the origin of certain metaphors, describe the different contexts they are used in and attempt to explain why they become central or stay peripheral in terms of their plausibility and argumentative force. The central metaphors in the television debates from June have presumably developed over a longer period of time in the months or even years preceding the final election. The “amicable divorce from the European Union” that has been discussed above, for instance, first occurred in the 1990s (Musolff, 2004: 14). It was not possible to trace this development within the scope of this thesis. The findings presented in this study could also be compared to the conceptual metaphors used after the result of the EU referendum has become known. Moreover, a comparison between the metaphors used to conceptualize the EU in Great Britain and other countries that are far less likely to leave, such as France, Germany or Austria, would likely yield interesting results. Last but not least, the thesis presented the importance of conceptual metaphor theory for second language learning. While the literature convincingly argues that the integration of conceptual metaphor in the classroom benefits all

four language skills, teaching materials that bridge the gap between theory and practice are still scarce. Not only is conceptual metaphor not commonly considered in student’s textbooks specifically designed for the classroom, but there are also few dedicated monographs or articles that focus on practical issues and provide materials for teachers. For this reason, the thesis attempted to translate theoretical proposals into one elaborate lesson plan and a variety of exercises that can be used continuously throughout the school year. Since it is impossible to cover the wide range of metaphor application, this thesis focused specifically on metaphorical competence and vocabulary learning. The first competence is closely connected to Danesi’s (1993) notion of conceptual fluency and requires learners to be able to comprehend, actively use and interpret metaphorical expressions in their first and second language. Since the use of conceptual metaphor on the issue of immigration has been observed in some detail in the foregone study, this topic was chosen to train students’ understanding and awareness of metaphorical expressions and consider their impact. Naturally, any other topic that is of interest to the students could be prepared for the classroom in a similar way. Secondly, the vocabulary centred exercises demonstrate how conceptual metaphor can serve as an organizing tool in expanding lexis. Hereby, students can acquire strategies for independent and life-long language learning.

100

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“EU: In or Out? With David Cameron”. 2 June 2016. Hosted by Kay Burley & Faisal Islam. Sky News. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFSJRH1q-A (17 November 2017).

“EU: In or Out? With Michael Gove”. 3 June 2016. Hosted by Kay Burley & Faisal Islam. Sky News. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8D8AoC-5i8 (17 November 2017).

“Hilary Benn and Andrew Neil Interview”. 6 June 2016. Hosted by Andrew Neil. BBC. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvSSTdg2tE&t=1364s (17 November 2017).

“ITV Brexit Debate with David Cameron & Nigel Farage”. 7 June 2016. Hosted by Julie Etchingham. ITV. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCwRZ7Fbvc&t=2065s (17 November 2017).

“ITV Referendum Debate”. 9 June 2016. Hosted by Julie Etchingham. ITV. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAzMktzipRc (17 November 2017).

“Nigel Farage and Andrew Neil Interview”. 10 June 2016. Hosted by Andrew Neil. BBC. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSQT7QnbWI&t=509s (17 November 2017).

“BBC Question Time Special With Michael Gove”. 15 June 2016. Hosted by David Dimbleby. BBC. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9-jDRQuToo&t=2003s (17 November 2017).

101

“BBC Question Time Special With David Cameron”. 17 June 2016. Hosted by David Dibleby. BBC. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBOdhFk7I4w (17 November 2017).

“BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate”. 21 June 2016. Hosted by David Dimbleby, Mishal Husain & Emily Maitlis. BBC. Television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmGcsxeHFtg (17 November 2017).

Secondary Sources

Ahrens, Kathleen. 2011. “Examining conceptual metaphor models through lexical frequency patterns: A case study of U.S. presidential speeches”. In Handl, Sandra & Schmid, Hans-Jörg (Eds.) Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 167- 184.

Allen, William & Blinder, Scott. 2013. “Migration in the news: Portrayals of immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in national British newspapers, 2010 to 2012”. Migration Observatory report & COMPAS at the University of Oxford. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Report-Migration_News.pdf (21 October 2017).

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and the Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Andreou, Georgia & Galantomos, Loannis. 2008. “Designing a conceptual syllabus for teaching metaphors and idioms in a foreign language context”. Porta Linguarum 9, pp. 69-77.

Ayto, John. 2009. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Azuma. Masumi. 2004. Metaphorical Competence in an EFL Context: The Mental Lexicon and Metaphorical Competence of Japanese Students (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

102

Barcelona, Antonio. 2003a. “Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals”. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Berg, Thomas, Dirven, René & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (Eds.) Motivation in Language: Studies in the Honor of Günter Radden. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 223-255.

Barcelona, Antonio. 2003b. “On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor”. In Barcelona, Antonio (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31-58.

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2012. Louder than Words. New York: Basic Books.

Black, Max. 1955. “Metaphor”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55 (1954- 1955), pp. 273-294.

Black, Max. 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca/ NY: Cornell University Press.

Black, Max. 1977. “More about metaphor”. Dialectica 31 (3/4), pp. 431-457.

Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth. 2008. “From empirical findings to pedagogical practice”. In Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 375-393.

Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth. 2009. Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boers, Frank & Stengers, Helene. 2008. “A quantitative comparison of the English and Spanish repertoires of figurative idioms”. Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 355-373.

Boers, Frank. 2000. “Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention”. Applied Linguistics 1 (4), pp. 553-571. 103

Bordoditsky, Lera. 2000. “Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors”. Cognition 75(1), pp. 1-28.

Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. “Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time”. Cognitive Psychology 43 (1), pp. 1-22.

Bredin, Hugh. 1984. “Metonymy”. Poetics Today 5 (1), pp. 45-48.

Brugman, Claudia & Lakoff, George. 1988. “Cognitive topology and lexical networks”. In Small, Steve, Cotrell, Garrison & Tannenhaus, Michael (Eds.) Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Paolo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 477-508.

Cameron, Lynne & Deignan, Alice. 2003. “Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse”. Metaphor and Symbol 18 (3), pp. 149-160.

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2006. “Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign”. Discourse Society 17 (5), pp. 563-581.

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2009. “Metaphor and political communication”. In Musolff, Andreas & Zinken, Jörg (Eds.) Metaphor and Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97-115.

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphors (2nd edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2014. Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chilton, Paul & Ilyin, Mikhail. 1993. “Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the ‘Common European House’”. Discourse and Society 4 (1), pp. 7-31.

Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.

104

Cislaru, Georgeta. 2007. “Metonymic modelling of discourse, discourse modelling of metonymy: The case of the place-name based metonymies”. Culture Language and Representation 5, pp. 93-110.

Clausner, Timothy C. & Croft, William. 1997. “Productivity and schematicity in metaphors”. Cognitive Science 21 (3), pp. 247-82.

Condon, Nora. 2008. “How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs”. In Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 133-158.

Council of Europe. 2011. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Crutchley, Alison. 2007. “Comprehension of idiomatic verb and particle construction in 6- to 11-year-old children”. First Language 27 (3), pp. 203-226.

Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve. 2014. Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Danesi, Marcel. 1993. “Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language learning: The neglected dimension”. In Alatis, James (Ed.) Language, Communication and Social Meaning. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 489-500.

Danesi, Marcel. 1986. “The role of metaphor in second language pedagogy”. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 18 (3), pp. 1-10.

Danesi, Marcel. 2008. “Conceptual errors in second language learning”. De Knop, Sabine & de Rycker, Teun (Eds.) Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 231-256.

Danesi, Marcel. 2016. “Conceptual fluency in second language teaching: An overview of problems, issues, research findings and pedagogy”. 105

International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 5 (1), pp. 145-153.

De Landtsheer, Christ’l. 2009. “Collecting political meaning from the count of metaphor”. In Musolff, Andreas & Zinken, Jörg (Eds.) Metaphor and Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79-96.

Deignan, Alice. 2011. “Deliberateness is not unique to metaphor: A response to Gibbs”. Metaphor and the Social World 1 (1), pp. 57-60.

Del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2009. “Racism and xenophobia in immigrants’ discourse: The case of Argentines in Spain”. Discourse and Society 20 (5), pp. 571-592.

Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power. London: Longman.

Feldman, Jeroma A. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. London. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame semantics”. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111-137.

Genette, Gerard. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University Press.

Gentner, Dedre, Imai, Mutsumi, & Boroditsky, Lera. 2002. “As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space → time metaphors”. Language and Cognitive Processes 17 (5), pp. 537-565.

Gibbs, Raymond W. & O’Brien, Jennifer E. 1990. “Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning”. Cognition 36 (1), pp. 35-68.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1990. “Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity”. Cognitive Linguistics 1 (4), pp. 417-451.

106

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Raymond W., Leggit, John S. & Turner, Elizabeth A. 2002. “What’s special about figurative language in emotional communication?” In Fussell, Susan R. (Ed.) The Verbal Communication of Emotions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 125-150.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. “Speaking and thinking with metonymy”. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Güntner (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 61-76.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2011. “Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action”. Metaphor and the Social World 1 (1), pp. 26-52.

Grady, Joseph E. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Grady, Joseph E. 1999. “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance”. In Gibbs, Raymond W. & Steen, Gerard J. (Eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 79-100.

Handl, Sandra. 2011. The Conventionality of Figurative Language: A Usage- Based Study. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.

Hebb, Donald. 1949. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Hoang, Ha. 2014. “Metaphor and second language learning: The state of the field”. The Electronical Journal for English as a Second Language 18 (2), pp. 1-27.

Holme, Randal. 2004. Mind, Metaphor and Language Teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 107

Hülsse, Rainer. 2006. “Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra- nationalist identity”. Journal of International Relations and Development 9, pp. 396-421.

Hutton, Christopher. 2001. “Cultural and political relativism, universalism and the politics of linguistic: Dilemmas of a wouldbe progressive linguistics”. In Dirven, Renè, Hawkins, Bruce & Sandikcioglu, Esra (Eds.) Language and Ideology, Volume 1: Theoretical and Cognitive Approaches. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 277–296.

Jäkel, Olaf. 1997. Metaphern in abstrakten Diskursdomänen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Jäkel, Olaf. 1999. “Kant, Blumenberg, Weinrich: Some forgotten contributions to the cognitive theory of metaphor.” In Gibbs, Raymond W. & Steen, Gerard J. (Eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp.9-27.

Jakobson, Roman. 1971. “Two types of language and two types of aphasic disturbances”. Jakobson, Roman (Ed.) Selected Writings Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 239-259.

John of Salisbury. 1990. Policraticus. Of the Frivolities of Courtiers and the Footprints of Philosophers. Nederman, Cary J. (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Christopher. 1999. “Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case ‘see’”. In Hiraga, Masako K., Sinha, Chris & Wilcox, Sherman (Eds.) Cultural, Typological and Psychological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Biannual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 155-169.

Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi & Tissari, Heli. 2006. “Sense and sensibility: Rational thought versus emotion in metaphorical language“. In Stefanowitsch,

108

Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th. (Eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191-213.

Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi. 2000. Abstract Words in Abstract Worlds: Directionality and Prototypical Structure in the Semantic Change of English Nouns of Cognition. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.

Koller. Veronika. 2006. “Of critical importance: Using electronic text corpora to study metaphor in business media discourse“. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan T. (Eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237-266.

Kövecses, Zoltán & Szabó, Péter. 1996. “Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics”. Applied Linguistics 17 (3), pp. 285-299.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1998. “Are there any emotion-specific metaphors?” In Angeliki, Athanasiadou & Tabaskowska, Elzbieta (Eds.) Speaking of Emotion: Conceptualization and Expression. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 127–151.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2003. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2009. “Metaphor, culture and discourse: The pressure of coherence”. In Musolff, Andreas & Zinken, Jörg (Eds.) Metaphor and Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11-24.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2011. “Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory”. In Handl, Sandra & Schmid, Hans-Jörg (Eds.) Windows to the Mind:

109

Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Krasnoboka, Natalya & De Landtsheer, Christ’l. 2007. “Broadcasting the orange revolution: Rhetoric of the Ukrainian media during the last presidential campaign”. In Farnen, Russell F., Dekker, Henk, De Landtsheer, Christ’l, Sünker, Heinz & German, Daniel B. (Eds.) Political Culture, Socialization and Education: Interdisciplinary and Cross-National Perspectives for a New Century. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. London/ Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 2003. Metaphors We Live By (2nd edition). London/ Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Study to Poetic Metaphor. London/ Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George, Espenson, Jane & Schwartz, Alan. 1991. Master Metaphor List, second edition. University of Caolifornia at Berkeley

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. London/ Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George. 1991. “Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf”. Peace Research 23 (2/3), pp. 25-32.

Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251.

110

Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George. 2008. “The neural theory of language”. In Gibbs, Raymond W. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-38.

Lazar, Gillian. 1996. “Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary”. ELT Journal 50 (1), pp. 43-51.

Lazar, Gillian. 2003. Meanings and Metaphors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, Samuel R. 1977. The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Lewis, Michael. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Littlemore, Jeanette & Low, Graham. 2006. Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Littlemore, Jeanette, Chen, Phyllis T., Koester, Almut & Barnden, John. 2011. “Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by students whose first language is not English”. Applied Linguistics 32 (4), pp. 408-429.

Littlemore, Jeanette. 2001a. “Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with holistic cognitive style?”. TESOL Quarterly 35 (3), pp. 459-491.

Littlemore, Jeanette. 2001b. “The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students”. Teaching in Higher Education 6 (3), pp. 333-349.

Lodge, David. 1977. The Modes of Modern Writing. London: Arnold. 111

Low, Graham, Littlemore, Jeanette & Koester Almust. 2008. “Metaphor use in three UK university lectures”. Applied Linguistics 29 (3), pp. 428-455.

Luke, Timothy W. 2004. “Megametaphorics: Rereading globalization and virtualization as rhetorics of world politics”. In Beer, Francis A. & De Landtsheer, Christ’l (Eds.) Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 237-258.

Macmillan Education. 2005. Phrasal Verbs Plus. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Manners, Ian & Whitman, Richard G. 2003. “The ‘difference engine’: Constructing and representing the international identity of the European Union”. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (3), pp. 380–404.

McCarthy, O’Keeffe & Walsh, Steve. 2010. Vocabulary Matrix: Understanding, Learning, Teaching. Hampshire: Heinle, Cengage Learning EMEA.

McGlone, Matthew S., & Harding, Jennifer L. 1998. “Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24 (5), pp. 1211-1223.

Miller, George A. 1993. “Images and models, similes and metaphor”. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 357-400.

Mio, Jeffery S. 1997. “Metaphor and politics”. Metaphor and Symbol 12 (2), pp. 113-133.

Müller, Cornelia. 2011. “Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action”. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1), pp.61-66.

Musolff, Andreas & Zinken, Jürgen. 2009. Metaphor and Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

112

Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Najak, Nandini P. & Gibbs, Raymond W. “Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 119 (3), pp. 315-330.

Narayanan, Srinivas. 1997. Embodiment in Language Understanding: Sensory- Motor Representations for Metaphoric Reasoning about Event Descriptions (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Nation, Paul. 2000. “Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines”. TESOL Journal 9 (2), pp. 6-10.

O’Dell, Felicity & McCarthy, Michael. 1997. English Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Dell, Felicity & McCarthy, Michael. 2001. Test Your English Vocabulary in Use. Upper Intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paivio, Allan. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Partington, Alan. 2006. “Metaphors, motifs and similes across discourse types: Corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work“. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th. (Eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 267-304. .

Petrica, Monica. 2011. “ ‘Overt’ vs. ‘covert’ cultural variance in metaphor usage: Europe vs. Malta and the EU membership debate”. In Handl, Sandra & Schmid, Hans-Jörg (Eds.) Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 143-166.

113

Pollio, Howard R., Barlow, Jack M., Fine, Hardol J. & Pollio, Marilyn R. 1977. Psychology and the Poetics of Growth: Figurative Language in Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse”. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1), pp. 1–39.

Reddy, Michael J. 1979. “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language”. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284-310.

Richards, Ivor A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.

Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds - A Cognitive Approach. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rundell, Michael & Fox, Gwyneth (Eds.). 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Rundell, Michael. 2001. “Cats, conversations and metaphor”. Humanising Language Teaching 3. www.hltmag.co.uk.Pilgrims (08.11.2017).

Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. “Liberal identity and post-nationalist inclusion: The Eastern enlargement of the European Union”. In Cederman, Lars-Erik (Ed.) Constructing Europe’s Identity: The External Dimension. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 165–86.

Schmitt, Norbert. 2008. “Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning”. Language Teaching Research 12 (3), pp. 329-363.

Scott, James W. 2005. “The EU and ‘Wider Europe’: Toward an alternative geopolitics of regional cooperation?”. Geopolitics 10 (3), pp. 429-454.

Searle, John R. 1979. Expressions and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

114

Searle, John R. 1993. “Metaphor”. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83- 111.

Sökmen, Anita J. 1997. “Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary”. Schmitt, Norbert & McCarty, Michael (Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-257.

Sontag, Susan. 1991. Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors. London: Penguin.

Steen, Gerard & Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. “Introduction”. In Gibbs, Raymond W. & Steen, Gerard J. (Eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 1-8.

Steen, Gerard J. 1999. “From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps”. In Gibbs, Raymond W. & Steen, Gerard J. (Eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Steen, Gerard J. 2007. “Finding metaphor in discourse: Pragglejaz and beyond”. Culture, Language and Representation 5, pp. 9-25.

Steen, Gerard. 2008. “The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three- dimensional model of metaphor”. Metaphor and Symbol 23 (4), pp. 213- 241.

Steen, Gerard. 2011. “What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean? More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness and action”. Metaphor and the Social World 1 (1), pp. 53-56.

Stefanowitch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan T. 2005. “Covarying collexemes”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1, pp. 1-43.

Stefanowitch, Anatol. 2004. “HAPPINESS in English and German: A metaphorical- pattern analysis”. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (Eds.) Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 137–149. 115

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006a. “Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy”. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th. (Eds.) Corpus- Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-16.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006b. “Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach”. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th. (Eds.) Corpus- Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63-105.

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind-as-Body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tekin, Beyza C. 2010. Representation and Othering in Discourse: The Construction of Turkey in the EU Context. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (6.12.2017).

Tissari, Heli. 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in Prototypical Senses and Cognitive Metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.

Tsoukas, Haridimos. 1991. “The missing link, a transformational view of metaphors in organizational science”. Academy of Management Review 16 (3), pp. 566-585.

Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Twardzisz, Piotr. 2013. The Language of Interstate Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

116

Ungerer, Friedrich & Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.

Van der Valk, Ineke. 2001. “Parliamentary discourse on immigration and nationality in France”. In Wodak, Ruth & van Dijk, Teun A. (Eds.) Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag, pp. 221-260.

Van der Valke, Ineke. 2003. “Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France”. Discourse and Society 14 (3), pp. 309–348.

Van Dijk, Teun A. 2000. “On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration”. In Reisigl, Martin & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis. Vienna: Passagen Verlag, pp. 85-104.

Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse and manipulation”. Discourse and Society 17 (3), pp. 359-383.

Van Ham, Peter. 2001. European Integration and the Postmodern Condition: Governance, Democracy, Identity. London: Routledge.

Vertessen, Dieter & De Landtsheer, Christ’l. 2007. “A metaphorical election style: Metaphor use at election times”. In Pikalo, J & Carver, T (Eds.) Politics, Language and Metaphor. London: Routledge, pp. 272-285.

Voss, James F., Kennet, Joel, Wiley, Jennifer & Engstler-Schooler, Tonya Y.E. 1992. “Experts at debates: The use of metaphor in the U.S. senate debate on the Gulf Crisis”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 7 (3/4), pp. 197-214.

Waring, Rob. 2015. “Second language vocabulary”. Rob Waring’s Website. http://www.robwaring.org/vocab/index.html (29.10.2017).

Warren, Beatrice. 2004. “Anaphoric pronouns of metonymic expressions”. Metaphoric.de 7, pp. 105-114.

117

Wilson, Nicole J. & Gibbs, Raymond W. 2007. “Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension”. Cognitive Science 31 (4), pp. 721-731.

Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Yu, Ning. 2009. From Body to Meaning in Culture. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

118

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre hiermit an Eides statt durch meine eigenhändige Unterschrift, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich oder inhaltlich den angegebenen Quellen entnommen wurden, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht.

Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch nicht als Magister-/Master-/Diplomarbeit/Dissertation eingereicht.

Innsbruck, Dezember 2017 ______Carina Rützler

119