War Metaphors in Business: A Metaphostructional Analysis

• Authors: Wiliński Jarosław
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

This paper adopts the notion of metaphostruction (Wiliński 2015), the conceptual theory of metaphor (Kӧvecses 2002) and the corpus-based method geared specifi cally for investigating the interaction between target domains and the source domain lexemes that occur in them. The method, referred to as metaphostructional analysis (Wiliński 2015), is used to determine the degree of association between the target domain of business and the source domain lexemes derived from military terminology. The results of the metaphostructional analysis reveal that there are indeed war terms that demonstrate strong or loose associations with the target domain of business, and that these instantiate different metaphorical mappings.

Keywords

EN

metaphor; corpus-based research; linguistics; lexems; military terminology

• Publisher: Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw
• Journal: Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 26/2
• Pages: 61-78

Contributors

author

Wiliński Jarosław

• Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities

References

• Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Charteris-Black, Jonathan and Timothy Ennis. 2001. “A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial Reporting.” English for Specifi c Purposes 20.3: 249–266.
• Charteris-Black, Jonathan, and Andreas Musolff . 2003. “Battered Hero or Innocent Victim? A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Describing Euro Trading in British and German Financial Reporting.” English for Specifi c Purposes 22.2: 153–176.
• Deignan, Alice. 1999a. “Corpus-Based Research into Metaphor.” Researching
• and Applying Metaphor. Ed. Lynne Cameron, and Graham Low. Cambridge:
• Cambridge University Press. 177–199.
• Deignan, Alice. 1999b. “Metaphorical Polysemy and Paradigmatic Relations. A Corpus Study.” Word 50: 319–338.
• Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Divjak, Dagmar, and Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris. 2015. “Frequency and Entrenchment.” Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Ewa Dąbrowska, and Dagmar Divjak. Berlin: De Gruyter. 53–75.
• Evans, Vyvyan. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
• Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gonzálvez-García, Francisco, María S. Peña-Cervel, and Lorena P. Hernández. Ed. 2013. Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (Benjamins Current Topics 56). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. “More (Old and New) Misunderstandings of Collostructional Analysis: on Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013).” Cognitive Linguistics 26.3: 505–536.
• Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004a. “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 97–129.
• Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004b. “Co-varying Collexemes in the Into-Causative.” Language, Culture, and Mind. Ed. Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 225–236.
• Grygiel, Marcin. 2015. “The Conceptual Metaphor BUISNESS IS WAR in Business English.” Im Wirkungsdeld der kontrastiven and angewandten Linguistik. In the Field of Contrastive and Applied Linguistics. Vol. 6. Ed. Mariola Wierzbicka, and Lucyna Wille. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. 65–78.
• Hanks, Patrick. 2004. “The Syntagmatics of Metaphor.” International Journal of Lexicography 17: 245−274.
• Herrera, Honesto, and Michael White. 2000. “Business is War or the Language of Takeovers.” Panorama Actual de la Lingüística Aplicada Conocimiento, Procesamiento y Uso del Lenguaje. Vol. I. Ed. Mercedes Fornés, Juan Manuel Molina, and Lorena Perez. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja. 231–239.
• Kilgarriff , Adam. 2005. “Language is Never, Ever, Ever, Random.” Corpus Linguisticsand Linguistic Theory 1.2: 263–276.
• Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi, and Heli Tissari. 2006. “Sense and Sensibility: Rational Thought Versus Emotion in Metaphorical Language.” Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Ed. Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 175−190.
• Koller, Veronika. 2004a. “Businesswomen and War Metaphors: Possessive, Jealous and Pugnacious?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8.1: 3–22.
• Koller, Veronika. 2004b. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Macmillan.
• Koller, Veronika. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16.2: 199–224.
• Koller, Veronika. 2006. “Of Critical Importance: Using Electronic Text Corpora to Study Metaphor in Busine ss Media Discourse.” Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Ed. Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 237−266.
• Koller, Veronika. 2008 “Brothers in Arms: Contradictory Metaphors in Contemporary Marketing Discourse.” Confronting. Metaphor in Use. Ed. Mara S. Zanotto,
• Lynne Cameron, and Marilda C. Cavalcanti. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 103−125.
• Kӧvecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Küchenhoff , Helmut, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2015. “Reply to ‘More (Old and New) Misunderstandings of Collostructional Analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff ’ by Stefan Th. Gries.” Cognitive Linguistics 26.3: 537−547.
• Lakoff , George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff , George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Volume 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Liendo, Paula. 2001. “Business Language: A Loaded Weapon? War Metaphors in Business.” Invenio 4.6: 43−50.
• Oswick, Cliff , Tom Keenoy, and David Grant. 2002. “Metaphor and Analogical Reasoning in Organization Theory: Beyond Orthodoxy.” Academy of Management Review 27: 294–303.
• Partington, Alan. 1997. Patterns and Meaning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Prelipceanu, Cristina. 2008. “Military Metaphors in Business.” Synergy 4.2: 219–227.
• Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Helmut Küchenhoff . 2013. “Collostructional Analysis and Other Ways of Measuring Lexicogrammatical Attraction: Theoretical Premises, Practical Problems and Cognitive Underpinnings.” Cognitive Linguistics 24.3: 531–577.
• Semino, Elena. 2006. “A Corpus-based Study of Metaphors for Speech Activity in British English.” Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Ed. Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 36−62.
• Skorczynska, Hanna. 2012. “Metaphor and Knowledge Specialization in Business Management: The Case of Project Management Discourse.” Metaphor and
• Mills. Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Ed. Honesto Herrera, and Michael White. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 265−290.
• Skorczynska, Hanna, and Alice Deignan. 2006. “Readership and Purpose in the Choice of Economics Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 21.2: 87–104.
• Steen Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identifi cation: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. “Happiness in English and German: A MetaphoricalPattern Analysis.” Language, Culture, and Mind. Ed. Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 137–149.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. “Words and their Metaphors: A Corpus-based Study.” Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Ed. Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Th. Gries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 63–105.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction between Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–243.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. “Covarying Collexemes.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1: 1–43.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2006. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Tissari, Heli. 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in Prototypical Senses and Cognitive Metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
• Wiliński, Jarosław. 2015. “Metaphostruction and Metaphostructional Analysis.” Concepts and Structures − Studies in Semantics and Morphology. Ed. MariaBloch-Trojnar, Anna Malicka-Kleparska, and Karolina Drabikowska. Lublin:Wydawnictwo KUL. 247–265.