DIPLOMARBEIT / DIPLOMA THESISothes.univie.ac.at/47091/1/49703.pdfParis Saint-Germain manage to...
Transcript of DIPLOMARBEIT / DIPLOMA THESISothes.univie.ac.at/47091/1/49703.pdfParis Saint-Germain manage to...
DIPLOMARBEIT / DIPLOMA THESIS
Titel der Diplomarbeit / Title of the Diploma Thesis
„Metaphors we kick by: a comparative study of metaphors in English and German in football
discourse“
verfasst von / submitted by
Mag. Miriam Soltész
angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Magistra der Philosophie (Mag.phil.)
Wien, 2017 / Vienna, 2017
Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet:
A 190 482 344
Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet:
Lehramtsstudium UF Bewegung und Sport UF Englisch
Betreut von / Supervisor:
Univ.-Prof. PD Mag. Dr. Gunther Kaltenböck, M.A.
II
III
IV
V
ABSTRACT
This thesispresentsa corpus-based investigationofmetaphorical languageus inEnglishand
Germanfootballcommentaries.Thetheoreticalframeworkwhichunderliestheanalysisiscon-
ceptualmetaphortheory,asdevelopedbyLakoffandJohnson(1980)intheirseminalworkMet-
aphorsweliveby.Followingthemaintentsofconceptualmetaphortheory,metaphorisdefined
asasetofcorrespondencesbetweentwoconceptualdomains.Withinthisframework,meta-
phorisassumedtobearelativelypervasiveandfrequentphenomenonoflanguageandthought.
Thisresearchprojectpursuestwoaims:Firstly,itinvestigatesthedegreetowhichmetaphoris
presentinGermanandEnglishfootballlanguage.Secondly,itexploreswhichsourcedomains
areexploitedtostructurethediscoursesofEnglishandGermanfootballreporting.Therefore,a
quantitativeaswellasqualitativeanalysisareconductedinordertoinvestigatewhetherEnglish
andGerman football-relatedconceptualmetaphorsdisplayanysignificantdifferences.While
thefindingsofthequantitativeanalysisrevealthatatotalof80conceptualmetaphorsareiden-
tifiedintheentirecorpus,thequalitativeanalysisshowsthatmetaphoricallinguisticexpressions
derivefromawiderangeofsourcedomains,includingwar,physicalfight,animalbehavior,the-
ater,visit/meeting,aswellashome.
VI
VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Iwouldliketothankeveryonewhohasbeenthereformeforthepastcoupleofmonthscon-
tributinginsomanywaystothecompletionofthisthesis.Firstofall,Iwouldliketothankmy
supervisorUniv.-Prof.PDMag.Dr.GuntherKaltenböck,M.A.withyourcritical,yetvaluableand
encouragingfeedbackyouhavehelpedmetomakethenecessaryimprovementstoachievethis
goal.ThankyoufortakingthetimeformewhenIranintoatroublespotandadvisingmeinmy
researchprojectwheneverIfeltitwasnecessary.
PerhapsmybiggestshareofgratitudegoestoJulia,whohasnotonlybeenmyflat-mateand
fellowstudentoverthepasttenyears,butoneofthebestfriendsonecouldhopefor.Thank
youforallyouracademicadviceandguidance.Withoutyouthisthesiswouldnothaveturned
outthewayitdid.Thankyouforlettingmeworkinyourofficetogetherwithyouonweekends.
Thewritingprocesswasmuchmoreenjoyablewithyoubymyside.
ManythanksalsogotoMaria.Your friendshipenrichesmy life insomanyways.Thankyou,
Maria,forallthesupportyouhavegivenmeduringthewritingprocess.Mydiplomathesiswould
notlookthewayitdoesifitwerenotforyou.Thankyouforspendinghourswithmelayouting
mythesis.
IamgratefultomysistersEvaandEdith,whohaveprovidedmewithmoralandemotionalsup-
portover longdistance throughoutmyyearsof study. I amalsograteful tomyother family
membershereinVienna,EdiandJudithandtheirtwowonderfulchildren.Iamthankfulforthe
timewespendtogether.Youhaveprovidedmewithdeliciousmeals,mouthwateringdesserts,
excellentwineandlotsofstrongcoffee.
Ahugeshareofgratefulnessalsogoestomyparents.Withoutyou,mytimehereatuniversity
wouldnotevenhavebeenpossible.Thefinancialsupportyouhavegivenmeoverthepastten
yearsisinvaluable,butevenmorethanthat,Iwouldliketothankyouforsupportingmyevery
decisioninlifeandalwaysbelievinginme.YouhaveneverthoughtthatthereisanythingIcould
notdo.Thankyou forgivingeverythingyouhave togive:younourishedmypassion for lan-
guages,musicandsports.Iamconstantlyinspiredbyyourenthusiasmandloveoflife.Thisuni-
versitydegreemakesitpossibleformetofollowinyourfootstepsasateacher.AndIknowthat
Ihavebigshoestofill.
VIII
Lastly,mygratitudetoChristophisbeyondwords:Iwouldliketothankyoufromthebottomof
myheartforturningmylifeupsidedownandmakingitworthwhile.Youhavebecomeanim-
portantpartofmylife.Thankyouforyourpatienceandemotionalsupport,aswellasbringing
comforttomewhenthisprojectseemedunmanageableandoverwhelming.Withyouradvice
andsupportIalwaysgotbackontrackagain.Yourlongyearsofexperienceinreadingfootball
matchanalyses,matchreportsandlivecommentarieshasbeenextremelybeneficialtome.With
yourexpertiseinfootball languageandfootball ingeneralyouhavehelpedmegreatlyinthe
processofanalyzingmydata.Andfinally,thankyoufortravellingtheworldwithme.Iamlooking
forwardtomanymoreadventureswithyou.
IX
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Abstract................................................................................................................................V
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................VII
TableofContents.................................................................................................................IX
ListofTablesandFigures......................................................................................................XI
ListofAbbreviations............................................................................................................XII
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1
2 Theoreticalframework:theoriesandconcepts...............................................................5
2.1 Traditionalapproachestometaphortheory.................................................................5
2.2 Cognitivelinguisticviewofmetaphor...........................................................................8
2.2.1 ConceptualMetaphorTheory.........................................................................10
2.2.2 Sourcedomainsandtargetdomains...............................................................14
2.2.3 Theclassificationofmetaphors.......................................................................17
2.3 Operationaldefinitionofmetaphor............................................................................19
3 Metaphorswekickby..................................................................................................22
3.1 Thelanguageoffootball..............................................................................................22
3.2 Issoccerwar?..............................................................................................................25
4 Metaphoridentificationindiscourse............................................................................30
4.1 Deductivevs.inductiveapproachestometaphoridentification................................30
4.2 Kudos,challengesandcriticism...................................................................................32
4.3 ThePragglejazprocedureforfindingmetaphoricallyusedwords..............................34
5 Dataandmethodology.................................................................................................50
5.1 Compilingacorpus......................................................................................................50
5.1.1 Thechallengesofcorpusdesign......................................................................50
5.1.2 Thematerial....................................................................................................51
5.2 Methodsofanalysis....................................................................................................53
5.2.1 Directionofanalysis........................................................................................53
5.2.2 Metaphoridentification..................................................................................55
5.2.3 Thecategorizationofconceptualmetaphors..................................................62
5.2.4 Quantitativeanalysis.......................................................................................66
5.2.5 Qualitativeanalysis..........................................................................................67
5.2.6 Problemsandlimitations.................................................................................68
X
6 Presentationofresults.................................................................................................72
6.1.1 Quantitativeanalysis.......................................................................................72
6.1.2 Qualitativeanalysis..........................................................................................79
7 Discussion....................................................................................................................85
8 Conclusion...................................................................................................................90
References..........................................................................................................................92
Appendices..........................................................................Fehler!Textmarkenichtdefiniert.
Appendix1:GermanAbstract.................................................................................................96
Appendix2:Personalmotivation:wheretheideaforthisthesiscamefrom.........................96
Appendix3:CurriculumVitae.................................................................................................98
XI
LISTOFTABLESANDFIGURES
Tables
Table1Minute-by-minutematchreportsinvestigatedinthestudy..........................................................53Table2Distributionofmetaphorsacrossthethreedifferentmetaphortypes..........................................73Table3Extractfromthedatashowinglinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconceptualmetaphors...........76Table4Resultsofthetype-tokenanalysisoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor............................78Table5Overviewofthemostsalientconceptualmetaphorsfoundinthecorpus.....................................80
Figures
Figure1Totalfrequencyofwordsinthecorpusincomparisontolinguisticmetaphors...........................73Figure2DistributionofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphoracrossthetwosubcorpora..................77Figure3FrequencyofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorrelativetothetotalnumberofconceptual
metaphorsacrossthetwosubcorpora.......................................................................................................77Figure4ComparisonofmostfrequentlyusedmetaphorsinEnglishandGerman....................................79
XII
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
CMT Conceptualmetaphortheory
FIFA FédérationInternationaledeFootballAssociation(English:InternationalFederationofAssociationFootball)
IFAB TheInternationalFootballAssociationBoard
MBM Minute-by-minute:referstothewrittentextgenreofalivefootballcom-mentary
MM MacmillanEnglishDictionaryOnlineaccessedathttp://www.macmillandic-tionary.com
MIP Metaphoridentificationprocedure
Conventionsinthetext
Metaphoricalconcepts,conceptualstructuresanddomainsareindicatedbySMALLCAPITALS.
Metaphoricalexpressionsareindicatedbyitalics.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
IfonebelievestheEnglishfootballcommentatorwhoreportedonthematchbetweenFCBar-
celonaandAthleticBilbaothat“Bilbaocontinuetohuntinpacks”(MBM05),thenstudyingthe
languageoffootballwouldmeanstudyinganimalbehavior.Likewise,ifonetakesthedescription
oftheGermanreporterliterallythat“Ospinatauchtab”(MBM01),thenonedoesnotnecessarily
thinkaboutsoccer1inthefirstplaceatall,butratherthinksabouttheactivityinwater,namely
diving.Further,ifonebelievesthat“PSGmanagedtosurviveonceagain”(MBM06),thenone
mightgettheimpressionthattheteamParisSaint-Germainjustreceivedfirstaidinorderto
survive.However,thesedescriptionsofeventsonthefootballpitchduringamatchofcourse,
havenothingtodowithsurviving,huntinginpacks,nordiving.Infact,theuseofsuchphrases
infootballcommentarieswouldnotcountasusingliterarylanguage.
InlightofsuchexamplesitcanbeseenthatspeakersofEnglishandGermanmakeuseofmeta-
phorstodescribetheactionsandproceedingsonthepitchduringamatch.Intheframeworkof
cognitivelinguistics,metaphorisdefinedasunderstandingoneidea,orconceptualdomain,in
terms of another (Kövecses 2010: 4). Lakoff and Johnson (Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff &
Johnson2003;Lakoff1993) initiatedan influentialtheorycalledconceptualmetaphortheory
(henceforthCMT) inwhich theypropose thatmetaphorical language indicatesanunderlying
cross-domainmapping inwhichtheknowledgeofonedomain ismappedontotheotherdo-
main.ThiscanbeseenintheexamplesillustratedaboveinwhichitseemsthatwhenBilbaohunt
inpacksthatspeakersofEnglishusethedomainofanimalbehaviortodescribeteambehavior,
andwhenOspinadives,hisactionisdescribedusingthedomainactivityinwater.Similarly,when
ParisSaint-Germainmanagetosurviveinamatch,thenthewordsurviveisusedtoexplainthat
PSGwassuccessful.Example(1a-c)furtherillustratesthisphenomenon:
(1) a. ArsenalagiertbissigerindenZweikämpfen(MBM01)
b. Meunieragaindivesintotheattacker(MBM06)
c. PSGjustlooktosurviveinthismatch(MBM06)
1ItisimportanttonoteatthispointthateventhoughIcomefromanAmericanEnglishbackgroundandsoccerwouldinmycasebetheprescriptivetermtodescribethegamewhichtheMerriam-Websteronlinedictionarydefinesas“agameplayedonafieldbetweentwoteamsof11playerseachwiththeobjecttopropelaroundballintotheoppo-nent’sgoalbykickingorbyhittingitwithanypartofthebodyexceptthehandsandarms–calledalsoassociationfootball”,IwillusetheBritishtermfootballtorefertoassociationfootball,i.e.,soccer,notAmericanfootballthrough-outthispaper.So,soccerandfootballwillbeusedinterchangeablyforreasonsofstyleandforthesakeofconven-ience.
2
InCMT,thisunderstandingofonedomainintermsofanotheriscalledconceptualmetaphor,
whichhastobedistinguishedfromlinguisticmetaphors,whichareillustratedinexamples(1a-
c).Linguisticmetaphorsmakemanifestoneparticularconceptualmetaphor.Whatthismeans
isbestexplainedbyanexample.Thus,theprecedingexpressionsthathavetodowithanimal
behavior“Arsenalagiertbissiger“and“Bilbaocontinuetohunt inpacks“are linguisticmeta-
phoricalexpressions,whereasthecorrespondingconceptualmetaphorthattheymakemanifest
is TEAMSAREANIMALS. Example (2a-b) shows another conceptualmetaphorwith the linguistic
metaphorsthataremademanifestbyit:
(2) AFOOTBALLMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE
a. DieGeneralprobegegendasabstiegsbedrohteNancybrachtedemKeeperneueEr-kenntnisse(MBM03)
b. ErwirdmiteinemperfektenPassvonNeymarinSzenegesetzt(MBM03)
Here, theevents in footballareexplainedbyusing terminology fromthedomainof theater.
Theseways(1a-c;2a-b)ofreportingoneventsinfootballwouldverylikelyberegardedasordi-
narybymostspeakersofEnglishandGerman.Metaphorsliketheseareverycommoninfootball
reportingandareatypicalfeatureofthelanguageusedtotalkandwriteaboutfootball.Linguis-
ticstudieshavesuggestedthatmetaphoricallanguageisapervasivephenomenonineveryday
language(Lakoff&Johnson2003:3).Thisalsoholdstrueforthelanguageusedtotalkandwrite
aboutfootball(Beard1998:53;Bergh2011;Chapanga2004).
Inmanysocietiesfootballhasgainedacentralpositionincultureandcarriesaheavysymbolic
significanceinthelivesofmanypeople.AccordingtoBerghandOhlander(2012b:11)soccer
hasgainedthe-world’s-most-popular-sport-status.Thereisanundeniablepopularitytosoccer
inallcornersoftheworld.BerghandOhlander(2012b:11)supportthisclaimbyprovidingfig-
urestakenfromtheso-calledBigCount,astudycarriedoutbyFIFAin2006,toestimatethe
numberofpeopleactivelyinvolvedinfootball.Thefiguresarestunning:thereare265million
footballers(femaleandmale)worldwide,270million,ifrefereesandofficialsareincluded,the
numberofclubsamountstojustoverthreehundredthousandandthenumberofteamsmakes
up1.7million.Tothisnumberallthosewhoarepassivelyinvolvedasspectatorsliveinastadium,
viatelevisionortheweb,aswellastheoneswhoareinvolvedasfootballreportersandcom-
mentatorsshouldbeadded.Unfortunately,nofiguresareavailabletodeterminethenumberof
thosepassivelyparticipatinginfootball.However,Goldblatt,(2007:x)oncesaid:“[a]roundhalf
theplanetwatchedthe2006WorldCupFinal–threebillionpeoplehaveneverdoneanything
simultaneouslybefore.”
3
Takingthesefiguresintoconsideration,avastnumberoftexts–writtenmatchanalyses,reports
andcommentariesaswellasspoken(live)commentaries–areproducedeverydaytodescribe
theeventsandprocessesthathappenonthesoccerfieldduringamatch.Thewrittenaswellas
spokennewscoverageoffootballgamesmustbeinthethousands.Thus,thelanguageusedto
commentonfootball,alsoreferredtoasfootballlanguage(Bergh&Ohlander2012b:13),offers
myriadsofvaluabletopicsforlinguisticresearch.Schmidt(2008:11)hasputitaptly:“avocabu-
laryhasbeendevelopedinmanylanguageswhichaboundswithsynonyms,withfine-grained
semanticdistinctionsandwithsubtlestylisticvariation.”
Asillustratedattheoutsetoftheintroduction,manyeventsinfootballaredescribedbyusing
metaphorical language.For instance, linguisticstudiescarriedoutbyBergh(2011),Chapanga
(2004) andNordin (2008) have suggested that central items in football terminology such as
shoot,attackandfire,aswellastheGermanexpressionsSchuss,VerteidigungandAngriffare
metaphorically usedexpressions taken from thedomainofwarfare inorder todescribe the
eventsonthefootballfield.Footballcommentariesthusprovidearichresourcetoinvestigate
metaphorsinsoccerdiscourse.
Themainemphasisofthethesis liesonthecorpus-linguisticexplorationofmetaphorical lan-
guagepatternsinwrittenminute-by-minute(MBM)livecommentariesinEnglishandGerman.
Foronething,Iwillinvestigatethedegreetowhichmetaphorispresentinfootballlanguagein
EnglishandGerman,andtoanotherthing, it shallbeexploredwhichmetaphorsareusedto
shapethediscoursesoffootball.Morespecifically,theoverallobjectiveofthisresearchstudyis
toinvestigatewhichdomainsareexploitedinordertodescribetheeventsonthefootballpitch.
Theanalysisisguidedbythefollowingtworesearchquestionsthatwillbeansweredintheem-
piricalsectionsofthisthesis:Firstly,WhatmetaphortypesareusedinEnglishandGermanfoot-
ballcommentary?andsecondly,IsthereadifferenceintermsofpreferredmetaphorinEnglish
andGerman?
Inpursuitofthisaim,thisthesiscanroughlybedivided intothreeparts: firstly,atheoretical
introductiontothetopic,secondly,theempiricalstudy,andthirdlyadiscussionoftheempirical
findings.Thefirstpart,whichincludessections2,3and4,providesthetheoreticalbasisforthis
thesis.Section2outlinesthetheoreticalframeworkthatunderliestheresearchanddiscussion
inthefollowingsections.First,anoverviewoftraditionalapproachestometaphortheoryispro-
vided,followedbyanoutlineofrecentdevelopmentsinthisfield,introducingthecognitivelin-
guisticviewofmetaphortheoryingreaterdetail.Specialattentionwillbedevotedtothecon-
ceptsthatareofparticularrelevancefortheanalysisofmetaphorsinfootballdiscourse,suchas
thoseofconceptualmetaphor,sourcedomainsandtargetdomains.Section3is,foronething
4
concernedwiththephenomenonunderinvestigation,thatisthelanguageoffootball,andfor
another thing, investigates the conceptualizationof football in termsofwarfare, as this has
gainedspecialattentioninrecentmetaphorstudiesconcernedwithfootballdiscourse.Section
4introducestheconceptofmetaphoridentificationindiscourse,whichconstitutesthetheoret-
icalbackgroundtotheanalyses,andtherebypreparesthemetaphoranalysiswhichiscarried
outintheempiricalpartofthisthesis.
Section5and6constitutetheempiricalpartofthisthesis.Section5isamethodologicalsection,
itconstitutesadescriptionofthelinguisticcorpusthatprovidesthebasisforanalysis.Further,
itpresentsacomprehensivedescriptionoftheprocedurethatisusedfortheidentificationand
extractionofmetaphors.Section6thenreportsthefindingsoftheempiricalstudyoutlinedin
section5.Itisdividedintoaquantitativepart,whichisconcernedwiththefrequencyofmeta-
phoricallyusedexpressionsobservedinthecorpus,andaqualitativepart,whichrevealswhich
metaphorsareusedinordertodescribetheprocessesonthefootballfield.
Section7constitutesthefinalpartofthisthesisandisconcernedwiththediscussionandinter-
pretationof the findingsobtained in sections5and6.Section7 is setout tobridge thegap
betweenthe theoreticalconsiderationspresented insections2 through4andtheirpractical
applicationinsections5and6.
5
2 THEORETICALFRAMEWORK:THEORIESANDCONCEPTS
Inthe introductorysectionofthisthesisaverybrief insight intoLakoffandJohnson’s (1980)
conceptualmetaphortheoryhasbeengiven.However,sincethemaingoalofthethesisisto
investigatetheuseofmetaphorinfootballlanguageinEnglishandGerman,amuchmorede-
tailedaccountofmetaphortheoryisnecessaryinordertolaythegroundforthecorpus-linguis-
ticexaminationofmetaphorconductedinthisstudy.Therefore,thissectionofthethesiswill
firstlookatthegeneralnotionofmetaphorandhowtheconceptionofthisphenomenonhas
changedfromclassicalandtraditionalapproaches,whichcanbetracedbacktoAristotle,tothe
contemporarytheoryasintroducedbyLakoffandJohnsonin1980.Further,forthepurposesof
the linguisticanalysis inthepresentthesis it isessential tocomeupwithaclearandprecise
definitionofmetaphor,asmetaphorswillthenlaterserveasobjectofinvestigationandthus
providethebasisofthisstudy.Therefore,ontheonehand,theaimofthissectionistoprovide
adiachronicperspectiveofthenotionofmetaphor,ontheotherhanditattemptstogiveclari-
ficationofcentralclaimsandideasofthecurrentframeworkofmetaphorstudies.Finally,an
operationaldefinitionofmetaphorwillbedeveloped,soastoprovideathoroughbasisforthe
subsequentlinguisticanalysesofthisthesis.
2.1 Traditionalapproachestometaphortheory
Lakoff(1993:202)notesthatthelinguisticphenomenonofmetaphorshasbeenunderscientific
scrutinysinceAristotleandhastraditionallybeenreferredtoas“instancesofnovelpoeticlan-
guage in which words […] are not used in their normal everyday sense.” In traditional ap-
proaches,metaphoristhusseenasarhetoricdeviceinpoetic language.Thisviewholdsthat
whileliterallanguageisregardedasthenorm,metaphorisseenasfulfillingamerelyornamental
anddecorativefunction,amechanismforfillinglexicalgapsinlanguage(Deignan2005:2;Ma
&Liu:2008:260-61).Thus,Lakoff(1993:202)suggeststhatinthetraditionalview,metaphor
wasapropertyoflanguage,notthoughtandwasdefinedasa“novelorpoeticlinguisticexpres-
sionwhereoneormorewords for a concept areusedoutsideof theirnormal conventional
meaningtoexpressa‘similar‘concept.”
Fromthis,itcanbederivedthatintheclassicalsensesimilarityisthebasisofmetaphor.Thisis
bestillustratedwiththeexample“therosesonhercheeks”,providedbyKövecses(2010:78),
whorevealsfourtypicalfeaturesofthemostwidelyheldtraditionalviewofmetaphorandsum-
marizestheminthefollowingway:
6
1. Metaphorisdecorativeorfancyspeech.Weusethewordrosestotalkaboutsome-body’scheeksbecausewewishtocreatesomespecialeffectinthelistenerorreader(suchascreatingapleasingimage).Wedonotusethewordrosesaspartofthepro-cessofconceptualizingandunderstandingonethingintermsofanother.
2. Metaphorisalinguistic,andnotaconceptual,phenomenon.Whatevertheintendedeffectofpurposeis,inmetaphorwesimplyuseonewordorexpressioninsteadofan-otherwordorexpressionratherthanoneconceptualdomaintocomprehendanother.
3. Thebasisforusingthewordrosestotalkaboutsomebody’scheeksisthesimilaritybe-tweenthecolorofsomeroses(pinkorred)andthatofthecolorofaperson’scheeks(alsopinkorsomelightred).Thissimilaritymakesitpossibleforspeakerstousethewordroseinsteadof,say,thephrasethepinkskinonhercheeksforsomespecialef-fect.Thesimilaritybetweensomerosesandsomekindsofskinexistsinrealitybeforeanyoneusesrosestotalkaboutsomebody’scheeks.
4. Itisthispreexistingkindofsimilaritybetweentwothingsthatconstrainthepossiblemetaphorsspeakerscanemployforskinsofsomecolor.Giventhecolorofthiskindofskinonthecheeks,theroseisagoodchoiceforametaphorinawayinwhichmanyotherthingswouldnotbe;thus,forexample,wecouldnottalkmetaphoricallyappro-priatelyaboutthepinkishcoloronaperson’scheeksbyusingthewordsky,asin“theskyonhercheeks.”Theskyaswenormallythinkofit(wetakeittobeblue)simplybearsnoresemblancetohealthypinkishskinonthecheeks.Itisinthissensethatinthetraditionalviewcertainpreexistingsimilaritiescandetermineorlimitwhichlin-guisticexpressions,ratherthanothers,canbeusedtodescribetheworld.
ThesefeaturesoutlinedbyKövecses(2010:78)underlietheclassicaltheoriesthataredescribed
byCameron(2003:13-18),whooffersamoredetailedaccountofhowtheconceptofmetaphor
emergedanddevelopedoverthecenturies.ShetracesbackAristotle’sthinkingonmetaphor,
as,accordingtoher,hisviewsarethesourceofwhathasdevelopedeversince.Asaphilosopher
andrhetorician,Aristotleascribedtwobasiccharacteristicstometaphor:Firstly,metaphorisa
featureof rhetoricor speech-makingandcombines “clarity,pleasantnessandunfamiliarity”.
Thus,whenproperlyusedametaphorcreatesmeaningbycombiningthefamiliarwiththeun-
familiar,clarity isaddedbyusing familiareveryday languageandpleasantness is takentobe
charmthat is inherent inthisresemblance (Cameron2003:13).Secondly, it isusedtogivea
thinganamethatbelongstosomethingelseandwhenappropriatelyused,metaphorcouldful-
fillaconceptualfunctiontoproducenewunderstanding.Theideathathasbeenputforwardby
Aristotleisthatmetaphorisamatterofsemanticsandpragmaticsandthatboth,thelanguage
userandtherecipient,contributetothemeaningandunderstandingofametaphorowingto
thediscoursecontextandtheirknowledgeoftheworld(Cameron2003:14).Aristotletherefore
alreadyrecognizedthecognitivefunctionofmetaphorwhichbecamethecommonly-received
notionofmetaphorinthelastdecades.Thisfact,however,haslargelybeenignoredbymeta-
7
phorscholarsinlatercenturieswhichreduceshistheorytothesubstitutionofonetermbyan-
other(Cameron2003:13).AnothercontributingfactorwhichledtothedistortionofAristotle’s
workistherangeofthenotionofmetaphor.Aristotle’sconceptionofwhatconstitutesameta-
phorwasmuchbroaderthanintheoriesthatfollowed.Hence,metaphorwasusedtoreferto
anyexpressionthatwasusedinsteadofanother,includingdomainsthathadnotpreviouslyex-
istedforwhichtherecouldbenoliteralequivalent(Cameron2003:14).Thecognitiveapproach
tometaphorwhichhasbeensuggestedbyAristotlecanbefoundinthebasictenetsofthenow
prevailingcognitivelyinformedmetaphortheories,buthasbeenchosentobeignoredbymet-
aphorscholarsintheearlytwentiethcentury.
Thethreemostinfluentialtheoriesthatcameintoexistenceinthetwentiethcenturyholdcom-
parativelyrestrictedviewsofmetaphorandlanguageingeneral,duetotheriseoflogicalposi-
tivism inphilosophy. Proponentsof thismovementpostulated the importanceof literal lan-
guageuse,evenemphasizingitsprimacyandpreferenceinuse.Metaphor,wasthusputinto
contrasttoliterallanguage,ascribingmetaphordecorativeorornamentalpropertieswiththe
mainfunctionofaddingpoeticeffecttorhetoric.ThisisaconstraintofAristotle’sbroadviewof
metaphortoamuchnarrowerconception.Whathasbrieflybeenoutlinedattheoutsetofthis
sectionfallsintothiscategory.Metaphorisseenasafigureofspeechandistreatedprimarilyas
alinguisticphenomenon.Thethreetheoriesthatrepresenttheseideasarethefollowingand
willbebrieflyoutlinedinturn:Substitutiontheory,ComparisontheoryandInteractiontheory
(Cameron2003:15).
AccordingtoCameron(2003:15)theSubstitutiontheoryisoftenclaimedtobedirectlyorigi-
natedfromAristoteliantheory,but,assuggestedbyCameron,isactuallyamisrepresentation
ofit.TheSubstitutionviewofmetaphorholdsthatmetaphorisarenamingorsubstitutionofan
equivalentliteralexpression.Thus,intheexampletheatmosphereisablanketofgasestheword
atmosphere is seen as a renamingor substitutionof the termblanket.Here, not amapping
acrossconceptualdomainsisproposed,rather,itisreducedtothelinkingofconceptsorentities
(Cameron2003:15).ThisfactentailsthemisrepresentationofAristotle’stheorywhoincluded
theconceptuallevel.Further,whatthissimplifiedviewonmetaphortheoryproposesisthata
metaphoricalexpressioncaneasilybereplacedbyaliteralequivalentwithoutlossofmeaning.
Therefore,intheSubstitutiontheoryametaphorfulfillsthefunctionofreplacingorsubstituting
ofwhatotherwisecouldhavebeenexpressedequallywellusingliterallanguage.Thisenhances
thatmetaphorisdecorativeandornamentalandcanbedispensedwith(Cameron2003:16).
Thesameproblem,namelythatthereshouldbealiteralequivalenttoeverymetaphor,isalso
inherentintheComparisontheory.Cameron(2003:16)statesthatintheComparisonapproach
8
“theliteralequivalenttothemetaphorisheldtobeacomparison,orastatementofsimilarity”.
Thus, in thisview,ametaphor is seenasa reducedsimile.Forexample, thismeans that the
metaphorinShakespeare’sJulietisthesuncanbeexpandedintoJulietislikethesuns,andthe
understandingofthemeaningofthemetaphorisbasedonfindingsimilaritiesbetweenJuliet
andthesun.
TheInteractiontheoryofmetaphorhasitsorigininBlack’s(1962)workModelsandMetaphors,
inwhichheopposestheSubstitutionandtheComparisonviewthatmetaphorcanbeexpressed
inliteraltermswithoutlossofcognitivecontent.Instead,hesuggestedthat“amentalprocess
linkingTopic[i.e.target]andVehicle[i.e.source]generatesnewandirreduciblemeaningsrather
thanactivatingpre-existingsimilarities.”(Cameron2003:17).Thekeydevelopmentwhichcan
beascribedtotheInteractiontheorywasthatsourceandtargetaresystemsofideas,knowledge
and beliefs that interact. Therefore, to put it in Cameron’s (2003: 17) words: “Black’s work
broughtthecognitiveroleofmetaphorbacktocentrestageafterlongperiodswhenmetaphor
hadbeenreducedtomerelinguisticdecoration.”However,accordingtoCameron(2003:17),
Black’sunderstandingofmetaphoronly includednovelandstronglyactivemetaphors,which
arethoseoftenusedinpoetryandeloquentspeech.Thisresultedinmaintainingtheconflation
oflinguisticmetaphorsandconceptualmetaphors.
Black’sworksetthestageforLakoffandJohnson’s(1980)workMetaphorsWeLiveBy,which
tookmetaphorstudyinanewdirection.Theypostulatedacleardistinctionbetweenlinguistic
andconceptualmetaphors.Atthatpoint, itbecameobvioustomanymetaphorscholarsthat
theviewofmetaphorasapurelydecorativeandpoeticformoflanguageorasadeviationof
literalsemanticscouldnolongerbemaintained.
In thisoutline, itwasshownthat in traditionalapproachestometaphortheconceptwasre-
gardedatthelevelofindividualutterances,asbeingapropertyofwords,andtakentobeamere
linguisticfeatureandaestheticphenomenon.Metaphorwasseenas“anaberrationoranomaly
inthatthemeaningofanutteranceissomethingotherthanthelogicalliteraltruthofthatut-
terance.” (Chapanga 2004: 64) In contemporarymetaphor research the termmetaphor has
cometobeusedquitedifferently.Inthefollowingsection,Iwillintroducecognitively-informed
approaches tometaphor theory inmoredetail andwill explainhow the termmetaphorhas
cometobeuseddifferentlyinthepast30years.
2.2 Cognitivelinguisticviewofmetaphor
Oneofthemostimportantaspectsthatsetscognitivelyinformedapproachestometaphorthe-
oryapartfromthetraditionalviewsdescribedabove, isthatmetaphorplaysacentralrolein
9
thought,andisindispensabletoboththoughtandlanguage(Lakoff&Johnson2003:3).Intheir
seminalworkMetaphorsWeLiveBy,LakoffandJohnson(1980;2003)introduceacognitively
informedapproachtometaphorinwhichmetaphorisseenasanimportantcognitiveinstrument
whichstructureswaysof thinking.They found that,opposing towhat traditionallyhadbeen
seenasapoeticdevicetoaddrhetoricalflourish,isactuallyamatterofordinaryeverydaylan-
guage(Lakoff&Johnson2003:3).LakoffandJohnson(2003:3)notethat
metaphorispervasiveineverydaylife,notjustinlanguagebutinthoughtandac-tion.Ourordinaryconceptualsystem,intermsofwhichweboththinkandact,isfundamentallymetaphoricalinnature.Theconceptsthatgovernoutthoughtarenotjustmattersoftheintellect.Theyalsogovernoureverydayfunctioning,downtothemostmundanedetails.Ourconceptsstructurewhatweperceive,howwegetaroundintheworld,andhowwerelatetootherpeople.Ourconceptualsystemthusplaysacentralroleindefiningoureverydayrealities.(Lakoff&Johnson2003:3)
ThissuggeststhatLakoffandJohnsonbasetheirassumptionsonthefactthatourconceptual
systemislargelymetaphoricalandthatthen“thewaywethink,whatweexperience,andwhat
wedoeverydayisverymuchamatterofmetaphor.”(2003:3)However,itgoeswithoutsaying
thatourconceptualsystemisnotsomethingweareawareof.Evidenceforthethingswedo
everyday,howweactandhowwethinkcanonlycomefromlanguage.AccordingtoLakoffand
Johnson(2003:3),theconceptualsystemweuseinthinkingandactingisthesameweusefor
communication.Hence,lookingatlanguagecanyieldimportantevidenceforwhatthatsystem
islike.LakoffandJohnson(2003:4)havefoundawayofshowingwhatthemetaphorsarethat
structurehowweperceive,howwethink,andwhatwedo. Inordertodemonstratewhat it
meansforaconcepttobemetaphoricalinnatureandhowsuchaconceptactuallystructures
thinkingandeverydayactivity,theyusetheconceptofARGUMENTandtheconceptualmetaphor
ARGUMENTISWAR2forillustration.
ARGUMENTISWAR
Yourclaimsareindefensible.Heattackedeveryweakpointinmyargument.Hiscriticismswererightontarget.Idemolishedhisargument.I’veneverwonanargumentwithhim.Youdisagree?Okay,shoot!Ifyouusethatstrategy,he’llwipeyouout.Heshotdownallofmyarguments.
2Conceptualunits,i.e.conceptsanddomains,areconventionallyindicatedbySMALLCAPITALLETTERSincognitivelinguistics(cf.Herrmann2013;Kövecses2010).Therefore,conceptualmetaphor,conceptsanddomainswillequallybesignaledinSMALLCAPITALSinthisthesis.
10
Thoseexpressionsshowthatmetaphorisreflectedineverydaylanguage.Further,whatisalso
suggestedbyLakoffandJohnson(2003:4)isthatwedonotonlytalkaboutargumentinterms
ofwar,whatismore,argumentsareactuallywonorlostandthepersonswhoarearguingare
opponents.Positionsareattackedanddefendedandground isgainedor lost. Strategiesare
usedandplanned.Thisexemplificationshowsthatthethingsthataredoneinarguingarepar-
tiallystructuredbytheconceptofwar,however,notphysicallybutverbally.Furthermore,itis
pointedoutbyLakoffand Johnson (2003:4) thateven thestructureofanargument, that is
attack,defense,counterattack,etc.isreflectedintheconceptualizationofanargumentinterms
ofwarfare.Thisexampleshowswhatitmeansforaconcepttobemetaphoricalandhowitis
understoodwhatisdonewhilearguing.Fromthisthemostbasicviewofmetaphorcanbede-
rived,namelythatincognitivelinguisticsmetaphorreferstotheunderstandingofonethingin
termsofanother.Simplyput,thismeansthatintheexampleabove,anargumentisunderstood
intermsofwar.Therefore,LakoffandJohnson’s(1980;2003)pioneeringworkisadeparture
fromtheideathatmetaphorisapurelylinguisticfeature.Instead,theideathatmetaphorisa
propertyofthoughtgainedcenterstage.ThisgaverisetotheapproachcalledConceptualMet-
aphorTheory(CMT)whichistheapproachtakeninmuchcurrentwritingsandstudiesonmeta-
phor,anditunderpinsmostofthediscussioninthisthesis.
Toconclude,itcanbesaidthatLakoffandJohnson(1980;2003)havebeenabletogivesystem-
atic linguistic evidence to substantiate the claim that metaphors are indeed a concept of
thought.ThishasbeenillustratedwiththeexampleARGUMENTISWAR.Theirworkhashadare-
markable influenceonmetaphor research thathasbeendone since then.Gibbs (2011:530)
evenputsforwardtheclaimthatCMTistheprevalentframeworkintheacademicstudyofmet-
aphor.
2.2.1 ConceptualMetaphorTheory
Above,itwasshownthatcognitivetheorylocatesmetaphorinconceptualstructureandnotin
linguisticknowledge,thereforesettingitstrictlyapartfromtraditionalviewsofmetaphortheo-
ries(Stöckl2010:194).Further,itwasillustratedwhatitmeansforaconcepttobemetaphorical
andforsuchaconcepttostructurewaysofthinkingandeverydayactivity.InthissectionCMT
isdiscussedinmoredetail,asLakoff(1993:244)arguesthat“thecontemporarytheoryofmet-
aphor is revolutionary inmany respects”.This sectionof the thesisaimsat trying toprovide
evidenceforLakoff’sstatementandisconcernedwithgivingacomprehensiveaccountofCMT,
thuslayingthetheoreticalfoundationforthestudythatwillbeconductedintheempiricalpart
ofthisthesis.
11
In thesectionabove, itwashintedthatwithinacognitively informedapproachtometaphor
theory,metaphorisassumedtobearelativelyfrequentandpervasivephenomenonineveryday
language.Inthecognitivelinguisticview,metaphorisdefinedasasetofcorrespondences,ora
mapping,betweentwodistinctconceptualdomains,meaningthatoneconceptualdomain is
understoodintermsofanotherconceptualdomainandrealizedthroughalinguisticmanifesta-
tionormetaphoriclinguisticexpression(Kövecses2010:4;7).Aconvenientshorthandandsim-
plifiedwayofdescribingthisviewofmetaphoristhefollowing:conceptualdomainAisconcep-
tualdomainB(Kövecses2010:4).ThismeansthatintheexamplegivenaboveARGUMENTisun-
derstoodintermsofWAR.
Tofurtherillustratewhatitmeansforaconcepttobemetaphoricalandtogainabetterunder-
standingofwhatitmeansthatthereisaconceptualcorrespondenceoftwodomains,whichis
oftenalso referred toasmapping, Iwould like to takeupLakoffand Johnson’sexamplesof
conceptualmetaphorforillustration(Kövecses2010:6-7;Lakoff1993:206-208).Forinstance,
letuslookataloverelationshipwhichcouldbedescribedinthefollowingway:
Lookhowfarwe’vecome.We’reatacrossroads.We’lljusthavetogoourseparateways.Wecan’tturnbacknow.Idon’tthinktherelationshipisgoinganywhere.Wherearewe?We’restuck.It’sbeenalong,bumpyroad.Thisrelationshipisadead-endstreet.We’rejustspinningourwheels.Ourmarriageisontherocks.We’vegottenoffthetrack.Thisrelationshipisfoundering.
Intheseexamplesentences,loveisbeingconceptualizedasajourney,withtheimplicationthat
therelationshipisnotworkingoutanymoreandthetwopeopleinvolvedareatacrossroadsor
stuck,thattheyhavetoturnback,orgoseparatewaysandthusendtherelationshipaltogether.
Hence,theconceptualmetaphorLOVEISAJOURNEYmanifestsitselfinthemetaphoricallinguistic
expressionsthatareinitalicsintheexamplesabove,like,howfarwe’vecome,atacrossroads,
goourseparateways,turnback,goinganywhere,etc.Specifically,thismeansthatmetaphorical
linguistic expressionsmakemanifestparticular conceptualmetaphors.While linguisticmeta-
phorcomesfromthemoreconcreteconceptualdomain(i.e.domainB; inthiscase journey),
conceptualmetaphorcomesfromafairlyabstractandless-delineatedconceptualdomain(i.e.
12
domainA; inthiscase love).Thecorrespondingconceptualdomainthatalltheprecedingex-
pressionsmakemanifestisLOVEISAJOURNEY(Kövecses2010:4).Hence,inthisconceptualmeta-
phorthedomainofLOVEisunderstoodintermsofthedomainJOURNEY.
Thetwodomains(AandB)thatareinvolvedinconceptualmetaphorhavespecificnames.On
theonehand, themoreconcreteconceptualdomain fromwhichwedraw themetaphorical
expressions,and in termsofwhich themoreabstractdomain isunderstood, iscalledsource
domain. InthepreviousexampleJOURNEYisthesourcedomain.Ontheotherhand,themore
abstractand lessdelineatedconceptualdomain,which isunderstood in termsof the source
domain, iscalledtargetdomain.Thus, intheexample,LOVE is thetargetdomain. Inorderto
understandtherelationshipbetweenthetwodomains,weresorttoasetofsystematiccorre-
spondencesbetweenthesourceandthetargetdomain.Inotherwords,theconstituentconcep-
tualelementsofthesourcedomaincorrespondtotheconstituentelementsofthetargetdo-
main. These conceptual correspondencesare knownasmappings (Kövecses2010:7). Lakoff
(1993:206-207)putsitinmoretechnicalterms:
[M]etaphorcanbeunderstoodasamapping[…]fromasourcedomain(inthiscase,journeys)toatargetdomain(inthiscase,love).Themappingistightlystructured.Thereareontologicalcorrespondences,accordingtowhichentitiesinthedomainoflove(e.g.,thelovers,theircommongoals,theirdifficulties,theloverelationship,etc.)correspondsystematicallytoentitiesinthedomainofajourney(thetravelers,thevehicle,destinations,etc.).
FromthiscanbegeneralizedthatconceptualmetaphortypicallyhastheformTARGETDOMAINIS
SOURCE DOMAIN, or alternatively, TARGET DOMAIN AS SOURCE DOMAIN. In the example at hand
knowledgeaboutjourneysismappedontoknowledgeaboutlove.AccordingtoLakoff(1993:
207) thismeans that thegeneral knowledgewehaveabout journeysallowsandhelpsus to
reasonaboutlove.
TosumupthemostimportantaspectsofCMT,Iwouldliketoaddresstheinitialstatementby
Lakoff,givenatbeginningofthissection,whichemphasizestherevolutionarycharacterofcon-
temporarymetaphortheory.Itcanbearguedthattheessenceofmetaphorinacognitivelin-
guisticallyinformedframework“isunderstandingandexperiencingonekindofthingintermsof
another.”(Lakoff&Johnson,2003,p.5,italicsinoriginal).So,unlikeprevioustheoriesofmeta-
phoricalmeaning,CMTputsforwardthatmetaphorisnotjustanaspectoflanguage,butispri-
marily considered a cognitive phenomenon, as being a fundamental part of human thought
whichhelpsmakesenseofabstractcategoriesbyborrowingstructuresfrommoreconcretecat-
egories.Hence,CMTaimsatfindingalinkbetweenstructuresofthoughtandlanguage(Nordin
2008:114).AccordingtoNordin(2008:113)CMTisconsideredtobeapartofholisticcognitive
13
semantics, “where cognitive processes in ourminds are connectedwith the language being
used.”ThisargumentfollowsthecentraltenetofCMT,namelythatmetaphorisprimarilycon-
sideredamatterofthoughtandnotmerelyoflanguage.Deignan(2005:14)hasputsitaptly:
Conceptualmetaphorsfunctionatthelevelofthought,belowlanguage,andtheyarerarely,ifever,usedinspeakingorwriting.Theycouldbeseenasawayofde-scribingtheconnectionthatexistsbetweentwogroupsofideasinpeople’sminds.
Thus,toputitsimply,andfollowingDeignan’s(2005:14)lineofargumentonecouldsaythat
“metaphorsstructurethinking”.
Deignan(2005:15)developsthisargumentfurther,assumingthatwhenmetaphorsstructure
ourthinkingthatthen,theyalsoreflectknowledgepatternswehaveabouttheworld,thusstruc-
turingourknowledge.Allbritton(1995:45)observesthefollowing:
Metaphorhasbeenshowntoserveanumberofimportantcognitivefunctions,in-cludingthatofmakingnewdomainsaccessiblethroughmetaphorical“scaffolds”importedfrombetter-knowndomainssuchasinthecaseofmetaphorsinscience,andprovidingacoherentframeworkorschemaforunderstandingsucheverydaytopicsastime,argumentsandemotions.
Fromthistwotypesofknowledgecanbederived:firstly,akindofspecialized,moreofanaca-
demicknowledge,whichmostlikelyisonlyaccessibleforacertainpartofasociety,andsec-
ondly,amorecommonlyshared,generalizedknowledge,concerningeveryhumanbeing’sex-
perience.Thefieldofinformationtechnologycanbeusedtoillustratehowmetaphormaystruc-
turespecializedknowledge.Forexample,whenreferringtoinformationtechnology,thelinguis-
ticmetaphorsweband(inter)netarecommonlyusedtorealizetheconceptualmetaphorCON-
NECTEDCOMPUTERSARENODES INAWEB.Laypeoplemay thususe theirgeneralknowledgeabout
(spider)webs to conceptualize and understand the newdomain of computers and internet.
Therefore,accordingtoDeignan(2005:16),notonlynewvocabularyisacquired,butalsoamen-
talmodelofthetargetdomain.Inthiscase,thesourcedomainWEBistransferredtobuildthe
mental imageofthetargetdomainwhichconsistsofstrongconnectionsbetweennodesand
coverageoflargerareaswithfineconnections.
ThesecondkindofknowledgewhichhasbeensuggestedbyAllbritton,namelythatofeveryday
events,arisesfromtalkaboutthecourseofhumanlives(Deignan2005:16).Therefore,people
usephrasessuchastogetagoodstart,beingwithoutdirection,andgoplacesinordertorefer
totheconceptoflife,makingmanifesttheconceptualmetaphorLIFEISAJOURNEYassuggested
byKövecses(2010:3).Thismetaphorhelpsustotietogethertheeventsthatareexperiencedin
life into a comprehensible and logical framework. Thus, structuring the knowledgewe have
14
abouttheconceptof lifeusingthetangibleandwell-knownsourcedomainJOURNEY(Deignan
2005:16-17).
2.2.2 Sourcedomainsandtargetdomains
Intheprevioussection,itwasshownthatconceptualmetaphorsconsistofasourcedomainand
atargetdomain,aswellasasetofmappings,i.e.asystematicsetofcorrespondences,between
them.Bothtermshavealreadybeenintroducedandbrieflydescribedinthesectionbefore.This
section,aimsatfurtherelaboratingonthenotionofsourceandtargetdomains.Followingthis,
thedirectionalityofconceptualmetaphorswillbediscussed,whichisconcernedwiththeques-
tionofreversibilityofsourceandtargetdomains.
IthasalreadybeenestablishedintheprevioussectionthattheconceptsofLOVEcanbedescribed
in termsof theconcept JOURNEY.Thus, in theLOVE ISA JOURNEYconceptualmetaphor, thetwo
peopleinlovecorrespondtotravelers(Lookhowfarwe’vecome),choicestocrossroads(We’re
atacrossroads),andproblemstoimpedimentstotravel(It’sbeenalong,bumpyroad).Inthe
cognitively informedframeworkthesourcedomainstypicallycorrespondtoconcrete,clearly
delineated,simple,familiar,andphysicalexperiences,suchasphysicalobjects,bodilyphenom-
ena,andsoon.Whiletargetdomainsusuallycorrespondtoareasofexperiencethatarerela-
tivelyabstract, less-delineated,complex,andunfamiliar,suchastime,emotion,life,deathor
love(Semino2008:6).ThisappliesquiteclearlytotheLOVEISAJOURNEYconceptualmetaphor,
wherethetargetdomain(LOVE)isrelativelymoreabstract,lessdelineated,andintangiblethan
thesourcedomain(JOURNEY).Thus,theJOURNEYsourcedomainrestsontheaverysimplebasis
ofthephysicalexperienceofmovingfromoneplacetoanother(Semino2008:6-7).Itishighly
likelythatmostpeoplehavemadetheexperienceofgoingonajourney.IntherealmofCMT,it
hasbeensuggestedthat“suchbasicexperienceshavebeencapturedintermsofsimple,skeletal
mentalrepresentationsknownas‘imageschemas’.”(Semino2008:7).Intheexampleathand,
themetaphorLOVEISAJOURNEY,relatestothePATHimageschema,which,accordingtoSemino
(2008:7)“isaminimalknowledgestructureconsistingoftwodifferentlocations,apathbetween
twolocations,andadirectionofmovementfromonelocationtotheother.”Toputitsimply,
themetaphorLOVEISAJOURNEYistakenfrombasicexperientialcorrespondencesbetweenthe
destination of the journey (source) and the goals of the relationship (target); choices about
whichwaytogo(source)andchoicesaboutwhattodo(target);andtheobstaclesencountered
(source)andthedifficultiesexperienced(target).Thisisthusthesystematicsetofcorrespond-
encesthatcharacterizetheLOVEISAJOURNEYconceptualmetaphor.
15
OtherfrequentlydiscussedconceptualmetaphorsinthecurrentmetaphorliteratureareARGU-
MENTISWAR,LIFEISAJOURNEY,THEORIESAREBUILDINGSandIDEASAREFOOD,asillustratedintheexam-
ples(3)a-etakenfromKövecses(2010:3-7).
(3) a. Yourclaimsareindefensible.(ARGUMENTISWAR)
b. He’sneverletanyonegetinhisway.(LIFEISAJOURNEY)
c. Isthatthefoundationforyourtheory?(THEORIESAREBUILDINGS)
d. Ijustcan’tswallowthatclaim.(IDEASAREFOOD)
e. Therearetoomanyfactshereformetodigestthemall.(IDEASAREFOOD)
Theconceptualizationin(3a)forexamplerestsupontheassumptionthatwespeakofdefending
apositioninanargument.InCMT,itisconceptualizedasARGUMENTISWAR,whereasWARfunc-
tionsasthesourcedomainwhichstructuresourviewoftheconceptualtargetdomainofARGU-
MENTATION.Itispresumedthatourconceptualizationofargumentsiscomprisedofattacksand
defenses,positionsandmaneuverings,andvictoriesanddefeats(Steen2007a:49-50).Concep-
tualmetaphorstypicallymanifestthemselvesinanumberoflinguisticexpressions.Forthecon-
ceptualmetaphorARGUMENTISWAR,Kövecses(2010:6)liststhefollowinglinguisticsmanifesta-
tionsasexamples(4)a-g:
(4) a. Heattackedeveryweakpointinmyargument.
b. Hiscriticismswererightontarget.
c. Idemolishedhisargument.
d. I’veneverwonanargumentwithhim.
e. Youdisagree?Okay,shoot!
f. Ifyouusethatstrategy,he’llwipeyouout.
g. Heshotdownallofmyarguments.
TheLIFEISAJOURNEYconceptualmetaphorhasalreadybeenintroducedintheprecedingsection.
Example(3b)providesfurtherlinguisticevidencefortheexistenceoftheconceptualmetaphor
LIFE ISA JOURNEY.Here, life isconceivedofasapath leading tosomedestinationofa journey
whichcanbeinterruptedbyanotherperson.Theexperienceexpressedthroughthemetaphor
inexample(3b)isthatofmakingachoiceaboutwhattodoinlifeandnotlettinganybodyinflu-
enceordistractthatperson.Inexample(3c)theexpressionfoundationistakenfromthedomain
ofBUILDINGStotalkaboutthecorrespondingconceptinthemetaphoricallydefineddomainTHE-
ORIES.Thisconceptualizationrestsontheassumptionthatthefoundationofthestructureofa
buildingisthepartwhichisbelowthegroundandsupportstherestofit(MM,entryfoundation).
ThissenseoffoundationismappedontothemetaphoricallydefineddomainTHEORY.Examples
16
(3d)and(3e)areinstantiationsoftheconceptualmetaphorIDEASAREFOODandestablishsimilar-
itiesbetweenideasandfood.Thelinguisticmetaphorsin(3d)and(3e)suggestthatboth,ideas
andfood,canbeswallowedanddigested(Lakoff&Johnson2003:147).
Theconceptualizationsofmetaphorgiveninexamples(3a-e)and(4a-g)arefrequentlyfoundin
thecurrentmetaphorliterature,which,however,doesnotmeanthatletussay,LIFEforexample
isalwaysunderstoodintermsofjourneys.ThemetaphoricalreasoningofLIFEmayalsobeun-
derstoodbymeansofcross-domainmappings.Forexample,inadditiontojourneys,asshown
intheexample(3b),anotherfrequentlyusedsourcedomainforLIFEis theconceptofPLAYor
SHOW.Forfurther illustration, Iwouldliketotakeuptheexamplethatwasgivenrightatthe
outsetofthisthesis.ThefamouslinesfromShakespeare’splayAsYouLikeItcanalsobeinter-
pretedusingconceptualmetaphor.
Alltheworld’sastage,Andallthemenandwomenmerelyplayers.Theyhavetheirexitsandtheirentrances;Andonemaninhistimeplaysmanyparts. (AsYouLikeIt2.7)
Here,thosefourlinesareusedmetaphoricallyinthesensethatthestageiscomparedwiththe
worldandallthehumanslivingonit.Anunderlyingmetaphoricalstructuremaythusbeidenti-
fiedinthought,itisacomparisonbetweenlifeandatheaterplay,inwhichpeopleappeartobe
matchedwiththeactorsofaplay,andwherethedifferentphasesofaperson’slife,i.e.infancy,
childhood,adolescence,adulthood,andsoon, iscomparedwiththeshortperformancesthe
actorshaveduringaplay.Therefore,lifeisconceptualizedasaplayorashow.Theknowledge
andexperiencethatpeoplehaveaboutthepropertiesofaplayismappedontothemoreab-
stractdomainofLIFE.Hence,theconceptualdomainfromwhichwedrawthemetaphoricalex-
pression,i.e.thesourcedomain,istheconceptof(theater)PLAY,whereastheconceptualdo-
mainthatisunderstoodthisway,i.e.thetargetdomain,istheconceptofLIFE,yieldingthecon-
ceptualmetaphorLIFEISASHOWorLIFEISAPLAY.
Thecloserviewofhowwecometounderstandabstractconceptssuchaslife,love,andargu-
mentinmoretangiblewaysleadsusaccordingtoKövecses(2010:7)totwoimportantgeneral-
izationsthatemergefromconceptualmetaphors.Firstly,ithasalreadybeenmentionedinthis
thesisthattargetdomainstypicallycorrespondtoamoreabstractconceptandsourcedomains
typicallycorrespondtoamoreconcreteorphysicalconcept.Thisclaimrestsontheassumption
thatourexperiencewiththephysicalworldservesalogicalfoundationforthecomprehension
ofmoreabstractdomains (Kövecses2010:7). Itmakesmoresense to try toexplain the less
tangibleconceptintermsofamoreconcreteandphysicalconcept.Secondly,Kövecses(2010:
17
7) suggests that this is the reasonwhy inmostcasesofeverydaymetaphors thesourceand
targetdomainsarenotreversible,meaningforexamplethatajourneycannotbedescribedin
termsoflove,butonlytheotherwayaround.Thisisreferredtoastheprincipleofunidirection-
ality,meaning that it is typically thecase that themetaphoricalprocessgoes fromthemore
concretetothemoreabstractbutnottheotherwayaround.
2.2.3 Theclassificationofmetaphors
Intheprevioussections,ithasbeenestablishedthatmetaphorhelpspeoplestructuretheirway
ofthinkingaswellastheirknowledgeabouttheworld.Thecomprehensionofonedomainin
termsofanotherisbasedonasetofmappingsthatexistsbetweenthetwoelements.Sofar,it
was thus assumed that knowing a conceptual metaphor is knowing this set of mappings
(Kövecses2010:33).Thequestionthatnowarisesiswhetherthisappliestoallconceptualmet-
aphorsinthesameway?LakoffandJohnson(1980;2003)haverecognizedthreeseparatekinds
ofmetaphorwhicharecommonlyused.Thetaskofthissectionisthereforetoprovideade-
scriptionofthewayinwhichmetaphorscanbeclassified.
Kövecses (2010:37)pointsout thatconceptualmetaphorscanbeclassifiedaccording to the
cognitivefunctionstheyperform.Thismeansthatthemappingthatexistsbetweentwodomains
providesthebasisforthecategorizationofmetaphors.Startingfromthis,threekindsofcon-
ceptualmetaphorscanbedistinguished:structural,ontological,andorientational.Theyarenow
discussedinturn.
AccordingtoLakoffandJohnson(2003:14)structuralmetaphorsaretheones“whereonecon-
cept ismetaphoricallystructuredintermsofanother.”Thismeansthatthesourcedomainis
usedtodescribethetargetdomain.Thecognitivefunctionthatunderliesthiskindofmetaphor
istoenableusersofalanguagetounderstanddomainAbymeansofthestructureofdomainB
(Kövecses2010:37).Allconceptualmetaphorsthathavebeendescribedsofarcanbeclassified
intothiscategory(e.g.ARGUMENTISWAR,LIFEISAJOURNEY,etc.).Anotherexampleforastructural
metaphoristheconceptualizationoftimeintermsofmotion.Timecanthusbeunderstoodin
terms of physical objects, their locations and their motion. Example (5a-h) is taken from
Kövecses(2010:38)andprovidesanillustrationofthelinguisticrepresentationsoftheconcep-
tualmetaphorTIMEISMOTION:
(5) a. Thetimewillcomewhen…
b. Thetimehaslongsincegonewhen…
c. Thetimeforactionhasarrived.
d. IntheweeksfollowingnextTuesday…
18
e. Ontheprecedingday…
f. I’mlookingaheadtoChristmas.
g. Thanksgivingiscominguponus.
h. Timeisflyingby.
ThemappingsbetweentheconceptsTIMEandMOTIONprovideabasicoverallstructureandhelp
usunderstandthenotionoftime.Thisiswhatmoststructuralmetaphorsdo:they“providethis
kindofstructuringandunderstandingfortheirtargetconcepts.”(Kövecses2010:38)
Thesecondkindofmetaphorsarereferredtoasontologicalmetaphors.Theydifferfromstruc-
turalmetaphorinasmuchastheyprovidemuchlesscognitivestructuringfortargetconcepts.
Ontologicalmetaphorsservetoassignanewontologicalstatustogeneralcategoriesofabstract
targetconcepts.Thisbringsaboutnewabstractconcepts.Whatthismeansisthatontological
metaphorsallowustoviewanevent,activity,oremotion(i.e.ourexperiences)intermsofob-
jects,substances,andcontainers,ingeneral,withoutspecifyingwhatkindofobject,substance
orcontainerismeant.Thefunctionofontologicalmetaphorsistostructureabstractandvague
conceptswherethereisverylittleornostructurerecognizable(Kövecses2010:38).Itistheir
job“toassignabasicstatusintermsofobjects,substances,andtheliketomanyofourexperi-
ences.”(Kövecses2010:38).Kövecses(2010:39)usesthefollowingexamplesforillustration:
SourceDomains TargetDomains
PHYSICALOBJECT Þ NONPHYSICALORABSTRACTENTITIES(e.g.,themind)
Þ EVENTS(e.g.,goingtotherace),ACTIONS(e.g.,givingsomeoneacall)
SUBSTANCE Þ ACTIVITIES(e.g.,alotofrunninginthegame)
CONTAINER Þ UNDELINEATEDPHYSICALOBJECTS(e.g.,aclearingintheforest)
Þ PHYSICALANDNONPHYSICALSURFACES(e.g.,landareas,thevisualfield)
Þ STATES(e.g.,inlove)
Thepurposeofontologicalmetaphors istogiveundelineatedexperiencesamoredelineated
status.Thismeansthatontologicalmetaphorallowsustoviewexperiences(events,activities,
emotions,etc.)asanentityorsubstance.Thus,ontologicalmetaphorsallowlanguagespeakers
toreferto,toquantify,ortoidentifyaspectsoftheexperiencethathasbeenmademoredelin-
eated.Basedonthisassumption,wecanforexampleconceiveoffearasanobjectandconcep-
tualizeitas“ourpossession.”ThisallowsustosaythingslikeYouhavetoovercomeyourfears.
Thiskindofmetaphor,however,representstheonewhichistheleastnoticeabletypeofcon-
ceptualmetaphor.
Thelastkindofconceptualmetaphorthatremainstobediscussedareorientationalmetaphors.
As the termalready suggests,orientationalmetaphors “givea concepta spatialorientation”
19
(Lakoff&Johnson2003:14).OneexampleforanorientationalmetaphorisHAPPYISUPwiththe
linguisticrealizationsofI’mfeelinguptoday,Myspiritsrose,orYou’reinhighspirits(Lakoff&
Johnson2003:15).Theconceptualizationoftheemotionhappyintermsofthespatialorienta-
tionuprests,accordingtoLakoff&Johnson(2003:14),onthebasisofourphysicalandcultural
experience.Therefore,whenwecometothinkaboutahappypersoninapositiveemotional
state,oneimmediatelyvisualizesanerectposture.However,adroppingposturewithslouched
shouldersisassociatedwithsadnessanddepression.Thecognitivefunctionascribedtoorien-
tationalmetaphorsbyKövesces(2010:40)“istomakeasetoftargetconceptscoherentinour
conceptualsystem.”Kövecses(2010:40)statesthatthisisduetothefactthatmostmetaphors
thatfulfilthisfunctionhavetodowithbasichumanspatialorientations,forexampleup-down,
in-out,front-back,on-off,deep-shallow,central-peripheral.Thus,incontrasttostructuralmet-
aphors, thiskindofmappingdoesnotmakeuseofaparticular sourcedomain todescribea
targetdomain.Theymerelyassignaspatialdirectiontothetargetdomain.
Sofar,generalnotionsofthecurrentunderstandingofmetaphorhasbeensurveyed.However,
forthepurposeoftheunderlyingstudyofthisthesis,itisnecessarytospecifymoreexactlyhow
thenotionofmetaphorwillbeunderstoodthroughoutthisthesis.Thefinalpartofthissection
isthereforedevotedtodevisingaworkingdefinitionofmetaphortoclarifyhowmetaphor is
understoodthroughoutthisthesis.Thiswillspecificallybeofrelevanceintheempiricalpartof
thisthesis.
2.3 Operationaldefinitionofmetaphor
Theaimoftheprevioussectionswastodevelopacognitive-linguisticviewofmetaphorascon-
ceptualstructure,whichhasbeenthestartingpointoftheoreticalandempiricalinnovationover
thepastthreedecades.Inordertoprovideathoroughbasisforthesubsequentmetaphoranal-
ysesundertakenintheempiricalpartofthisthesis,itisthetaskofthissectiontoestablishan
operationaldefinitionofmetaphorandclearlydelineatewhatwillbecountedasmetaphorand
whatwillnot.
Ithasbeenestablishedthatwithincognitivelyinformedapproachestometaphortheorymeta-
phorisdefinedasthejuxtapositionoftwoconceptualdomainswhichstandinrelationtoeach
otherbymeansofsomeformofsimilarity(Steen2007a:66).Further,itwasshownthatconcep-
tualmetaphormanifestsitselfinlinguisticexpressions,alsoreferredtoaslinguisticmetaphor.
Hence,thegeneralnotionofmetaphorusedastheunderlyingbasisforthisstudyistheonefirst
developedbyGeorgeLakoffandMarkJohnsonin1980(4theditionpublishedin2003)intheir
seminalworkMetaphorsWeLiveBy.Therefore,inthepresentthesis,metaphorisunderstood
20
asa setof correspondencesbetween twoconceptualdomainswhich isexpressed invarious
linguisticformsinlanguage.
However,whenmetaphorinlanguageisunderstoodasindirectlyusedexpressionsthathaveto
beinterpretedbymeansofacross-domainmappingfromasourcetoatarget,onemajorprob-
lemthathasbeenidentifiedbySteen(2007a:69),is“theacceptanceofmetaphoricalrelations
betweensourceandtargetdomainsforthosemetaphoricalexpressionswhicharehighlycon-
ventionalized.”Thisisparticularlyrelevantinconsiderationofthegivencontextofthethesis,to
theextent that forpeoplewhoshowconsiderable interest in soccer coverage thedegreeof
entrenchmentofexpressionssuchasManchesterUnitedareonfire,orLiverpoolhavetheirtails
upvariesaccordingtotheindividuallanguageuser.Schmid(2016:21)hasputitaptly:
Ifentrenchmentrelatestothemindsofindividualspeakers,itis,moreorlessbydefinition,subjecttoindividual,speaker-relateddifferences[…].Mostofthesearehardtograspandcontrolmethodologicallybecausetheirsourcesarehiddenintheexposureandusagehistoriesofindividualspeakers,which,inturn,areinfluencednotonlybyfamiliarsocialvariablessuchasregion,gender,education,training,andsocialroles[…]butalsobypersonalroutinesandexperiences.
Ageneraldecisionthushastobemadeonwhatcountsasametaphorinfootballdiscourseand
whatdoesnot. For thepresent thesis Iwill therefore adoptHerrmann’s (2013: 52, italics in
original)viewofmetaphor,whodescribesmetaphorasa“relationalphenomenon,whichmeans
thatmetaphorismetaphoricaltosomelanguageuser.”Thus,asbasisforthestudy,metaphor
isunderstoodaswhatIaslanguageusertendtoperceiveasadeviationbetweenbasicuseand
contextualuseoflinguisticexpressionsandwhatdomain(sourceandtargetdomains)Iwould
classifytheseinto.Therefore,inthisthesis,metaphorswillbeapproachedonthelevelofcon-
cepts.Onlythoseinstantiationsoflinguisticmetaphorswillbecountedasmetaphorswhichde-
rivefromconceptualstructuresandcanbeunderstoodasasetofcorrespondencesbetween
twoconceptualdomains,i.e.atargetdomainandasourcedomain).Deignan(2005:34)suggests
thefollowinggeneraldefinitionofmetaphorwhichIwilladoptforthepurposeofthisstudy:
Ametaphorisawordorexpressionthatisusedtotalkaboutanentityorqualityotherthanthatreferredtobyitscore,ormostbasicmeaning.Thisnon-coreuseexpressesaperceivedrelationshipwiththecoremeaningoftheword,andinmanycasesbetweentwosemanticfields.
Thismeansthatfocuswillbeputonthoselinguisticexpressionsthatareusednonliterallyinthe
discourse.Theexpressioninquestionthusactivatesaconceptwhichcannotbeliterallyapplied
tothereferentsintheworldevokedbythetext.Inthisthesis,thetermmetaphorinlanguage
willbeusedtorefertolinguisticmetaphors,meaningthattheywillbetreatedatthelevelof
lexicalunits(i.e.words,phrasalverbs,compoundsandphrasesthatactassinglewords),asitis
21
importanttodistinguishthemfromconceptualmetaphors,thosewillbesignaledinSMALLCAPITAL
LETTERSthroughoutthisthesis.
Thepresentsectionhasprovidedathoroughbackgroundofthetheoreticalframeworkinwhich
theresearchprojectunderlyingthisthesistakesplace.First,anoverviewofthetraditionalap-
proachestometaphortheoryandhowtheconceptionofthisphenomenonhaschangesfrom
theclassicalandtraditionalviewtothecontemporarynotionofmetaphortheoryasfirstintro-
ducedbyLakoffandJohnsonin1980hasbeengiven.Inthissection,Izoomedinonconcepts
thatareofparticular relevance for theanalysisofmetaphors,namelyconceptualmetaphor,
sourcedomainsandtargetdomains.Further,Imovedfromthegeneralnotionofmetaphorto-
wardsanoperationdefinitionofmetaphor,soastolaythefoundationofthemetaphoridenti-
ficationthatwillbecarriedoutintheempiricalpartofthisthesis.InthefollowingsectionIwill
haveacloser lookatthephenomenonunder investigation,that ismetaphors infootball lan-
guage.
22
3 METAPHORSWEKICKBY
Thesectionoffersanoverviewofthelinguisticphenomenonthatisrelevantinmystudy,i.e.
metaphorsinthediscourseoffootball.Therefore,first,aninsightintothelanguageoffootball
willbeprovided,delineatingmainlinesofresearch.Secondly,anoutlineofcurrentstudiesdeal-
ingwithconceptualmetaphorinsoccerdiscoursewillbeprovided.Fromthere,Iwillalsode-
velopmyresearchquestions.
3.1 Thelanguageoffootball
On22June1986,ArgentinaplayedagainstEnglandinthequarterfinaloftheFIFAWorldCupat
theAztecaStadiuminMexicoCity.Inthe55thminuteArgentinawasinthelead1-0.Then,Héctor
EnriquepassedtheballtoDiegoMaradona,whohadalsoscoredthefirstgoal,insidehisown
halfandthenbeganhisfamous60-yard-in-eleven-seconds-dashtowardstheEnglishgoal,pass-
ingthreeEnglishplayersandmakingthescore2-0toArgentina(Thiele2010:188).Thisgoalhas
cometobeknownasGoaloftheCenturyandisoftenassociatedwiththelivecommentaryby
UruguayanjournalistandfootballreporterVíctorHugoMorales,asforTVspectatorsandradio
listenersMaradona’s11-secondslalomandclinicalfinishwasdrownedbyMorales’commen-
tary:
Maradonaontheballnow.Twoclosinghimdown.Maradonarollshisfootovertheballandbreaksawaydowntheright,thegeniusofworldfootball.Hegoespastathird, looksforBurruchaga.Maradonaforever!Genius!Genius!Genius!He’sstillgoing…Gooooal!Sorry,Iwanttocry!GoodGod!Longlivefootball!Whatagoal!Amemorable run fromMaradona. Thegreatest solo goalof all time.CosmicKite,whichplanetdidyoucomefrom?(2016)3
VíctorHugoMorales’words followingMaradona’sgoalareoften recited,evenFIFA.comde-
scribeshiscommentas“amemorablepieceofcommentary[which]isafaithfulaccountofthose
11secondsoffootballingperfection.”(Fifa.com2016)ThisgoalhasearnedMaradonathetitle
Fußballgottandthereputationofbeingthebestsoccerplayerofalltime.Likewise,thisecstatic,
tawdryandepicpieceofpoetryhasmadecommentatorVíctorHugoMoralesalivinglegend.
Thiele(2010:188)hasputitaptly:“DieWorte–odersollmansagen:Verse?–vonMoralesgibt
esimMuseumfürZeitgenössischeKunstgedrucktzukaufen.NebenKunstdruckenvonPicasso,
MondrianundvanGogh.”
3Seeforyourselfat:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JASEUO59YM
23
Thisshorthistoricalaccountofaworld-famoussoccercommentarymayshowthesignificance
offootballlanguage,thelanguageusedtorefertofootballspecificprocesses.SirBobbyCharl-
ton, a formerwell-known soccer playerwho played forManchesterUnited, found the right
wordstocapturetheessenceofthepoweroffootballlanguageanditsinfluencebytheEnglish
language:“FootballandEnglisharetheonlytrulygloballanguages”(Thaler2008:391).Consid-
eringtheomnipresenceoffootballwithperpetualpresenceinthemedia,present-dayfootball
undoubtedly brings about an enormous amount of “specialized language use” (Bergh &
Ohlander2012b:282),which,inthelightofitsscopeandquantity,dulyjustifieslinguisticanal-
ysisandinterest.BerghandOhlander(2012b:281)arguethatfootballlanguageistheworld’s
mostwidespreadspeciallanguage,whereEnglishplaysapivotalrole.Itisnotonlyfootballplay-
ersthemselvesandofficialsthatcontributetotheproductionofenormousquantitiesoffootball
language,evenmoreso,itisthemediathroughtheirthoroughandintensivecoverageofthe
game:livecommentaries,interviewsandpost-matchdiscussions,newsarticles,minute-by-mi-
nutecommentaries,writtenfollow-upsandstatementsoninternetblogscontributetotheuni-
versallyunderstoodandspokenfootballlanguage(Bergh&Ohlander2012b:282).
The term special language has already been mentioned earlier. According to Bergh and
Ohlander(Bergh&Ohlander2012b;Bergh&Ohlander2012a)“speciallanguagesareobviously
usedtotalkandwriteaboutspecialsubjects,whether,ofanabstrusenature,liketheoretical
physics,orofamorereadilyaccessible,down-to-earthkind,likefootball.”Hence,inthecontext
offootball,allthosepeoplearoundtheworldwhoareinvolvedinfootballinonewayoranother,
onoroffthepitch,contributetotheglobalphenomenonoffootballlanguage,itsoriginalvariety
beingfootballEnglish,accordingtoBerghandOhlander(2012a:14).
GiventhefactthatthecradleofthemodernvarietyofAssociationFootballasweknowittoday,
originatedinEnglandaround150yearsagoandtheuncontestedfactthat,atpresent,Englishis
the linguafrancaof theworld(Crystal2003), itdoesnotcomeasasurprisethatthe lexisof
footballcommentaryisheavilyinfluencedbyEnglish.Hence,footballasaglobalphenomenon,
althoughoriginating inEngland, isdisseminating itsEnglishterminologyto languagesallover
theglobe(Bergh&Ohlander2012b:282-283).BerghandOhlander(2012b:283)note inthis
contextthat“Englishfootballlanguagecannotbetreatedasjustanyvarietyoffootballlangu-
age;rather,itisthevarietythathas,asitwere,setthepatternfortheothers.”
BerghandOhlander(2012a:15-16;2012b:282)havehighlightedhowspecialfootballlanguage
maybeanalyzed.Theystatethatfootballlanguageisafusionofgeneral-languageitems(e.g.
win)andfootball-specificitems(e.g.freekick).Thismeansthatonecannottalkorwriteabout
footballprocesseswithoutusinggeneral-languageitemssuchasgoal,player,team,winorlose,
24
norisitpossibletoleaveouttechnicalfootballtermslikefreekick,offsideorcorner.Thisdis-
tinctionmaysoundquitestraightforward,butitisnot:itisextremelydifficulttodistinguishbe-
tweenwordsbelongingtothegenerallanguageandwordsmakingupspecialfootballtermsand
drawingaclearlinebetweenthetwo.
Furtherevidenceforthefactthatfootballlanguageisdependentongeneral-languageitemsand
football-specific items is thattechnical football termsandphrasesarealsoadoptedasmeta-
phorical expressions in general-language contexts, with no connection to football (Bergh &
Ohlander2012a:16).AsanexampleBerghandOhlander(2012a:16)drawattentiontotheex-
pressiontoscoreanowngoalwhichcanbefoundintheOxfordDictionaryOnline.Oneexample
sentencetoillustratethemeaningofthephraseisthefollowing:“Governmentscoresowngoal
byassistingorganizedcrimeinLondon”.Thisdemonstratesquiteclearlythatclear-cutcategori-
zation in this respect isnotpossibleandthat theboundariesbetweenfootball languageand
generallanguagearefuzzyatbest.BerghandOhlander(2012a:35)notethat“[n]owhere,per-
haps,isthismoreapparentthanwithregardtometaphoricalexpressions,anaspectoffootball
languagemeriting specialattention.”Examplesofmetaphors suchasRealMadrid fired their
heavyartilleryarepartoftheassortmentofmetaphorsthatareusedinfootballcommentary.
Here,asquiteaptlyputbyBerghandOhlander(2012a:36),
general-languagevocabularyprovidesthebasisformuchofthelexicalbackboneoffootballlanguage,intheformofmetaphoricalexpressionscapturingthecompetitiveframeworkofthegame,expressionsthatareso indispensabletofootball–every-whereandinalllanguages–thatwehavealmoststoppedlookingonthemasmeta-phors.
BerghandOhlander(Bergh&Ohlander2012b)arenottheonlyauthorswhobringuptheim-
portanceofmetaphors in football commentary. Carmeli (2001: 64)makes reference toAzar
(1972),whohighlights theabundantuseofmetaphors andborrowings fromother semantic
fieldsinsportsjournalismingeneral.Azar(1972asquotedinCarmeli,2001,p.64)supportsthe
claimthatmetaphorisusedforthepurposeofcapturingthereaders’attentionandthuspro-
claimsitsownidentity.Carmeli(2001:64)referstothesameideawhenhestatesthat“[s]ports
writingmoreevidentlymediatesandconstructsrealityforitsreaders.”Metaphoricallanguage
useinfootballcommentarybringsthereaderclosertotheactualeventsonthepitch.Iwould
liketobringthisargumentinlinewithCMT’soverallobjectivethatconventionalizedmetaphor-
icallanguageuseisaubiquitousphenomenonandplaysasystematicrolenotonlyinstructuring
languagebutalso in shaping reality, “emphasizing the roleofmundane (bodilyandcultural)
experience as capital sources of metaphorical meaning.” (Herrmann 2013: 29) Bergh and
25
Ohlander(2012a:15)alsonotehowfootballhasgainedcenterstageaspartofcontemporary
entertainmentandculture:
Thebroad interfacebetween football as sport and football as entertainment orpopularculturewillnaturallyleaveitsmarkonourperceptionoffootballlanguageasaspecial language,e.g. intermsofthevocabularyusedwhencommunicatingaboutvariousaspectsofthegame.
Thus,footballlanguagegoesbeyondtechnicalfootballtermssuchasfreekicks,cornerkicksand
offside,itincludeschanting,fansandhooligans,itisthelanguagethatisanchoredintheLaws
oftheGamethatlaysouttherulesdefiningthegame,itisthelanguageusedonthepitchand
offthepitch,inthemediaandbeyond,or,asBerghandOhlander(2012a:15)putit,“aspecial
andpubliclanguagerolledintoone.Speakersoffootballlanguageliterallyrunintomillions,not
tosaybillions,fromactiveplayerstoarmchairfanswatchingthegameonTVoronline.”
3.2 Issoccerwar?
Inhisessay“TheSportingSpirit”,GeorgeOrwell(1945)arguesthat“[s]erioussporthasnothing
todowithfairplay.Itisboundupwithhatred,jealousy,boastfulness,disregardofallrulesand
sadisticpleasureinwitnessingviolence:inotherwordsitiswarminustheshooting.”Further-
more,hestatesthat“internationalsportingcontestsleadtoorgiesofhatred”andputsforward
theclaimthat“[a]ttheinternationallevelsportisfranklymimicwarfare.”Orwell’sassertions
seemtorecognizetheparallelbetweentwoconceptualdomainsinourmind,namelythoseof
warandsport.Whilethiscross-domainmappingbetweenwarandsportsurelyhasinteresting
implicationsinvariousdisciplinesandculturalcontexts,itsmostnoticeableimpactcanprobably
beseeninthefieldoffootball,whichisoftenconceivedofintermsoftheconceptualmetaphor
FOOTBALLISWAR.ThisconceptualizationoffootballisalsowhatlendsthissectionthetitleIssoccer
war?Theprimarypurposeofthissectionistogiveanoverviewofcurrentresearchonmeta-
phoricallanguageuseinsoccerdiscoursethatcanbefoundintherelevantliterature.Therefore,
firstly,theconceptualizationofsoccerintermsofwarisexplored.Iherebywishtogiveevidence
fortheprevailingopinioninmuchofthecurrentmetaphorstudiesthatexaminemetaphoruse
insoccerdiscoursethatfootball is indeedconceptualizedinconflict-relatedways.Secondly, I
wishtoinvestigateother,non-violent,sourcedomainsthatareexploitedforconceptualizingthe
targetdomainfootball.
Ithasalreadybeenmentionedearlierinthisthesisthatmetaphorisaprevalentlyusedphenom-
enoninsoccermediacoverageinboth,writtenpost-matchcommentariesandliveTVreporting.
Studieshavesuggestedthatmetaphor isoneof themostdistinctive featuresof football lan-
guage (cf. Baldauf 1997; Beard 1998; Burkhardt 2006; Chapanga 2004; Gunell 2009;
26
Lewandowski2012;Nordin2008;Vierkant2008).Burkhard(2006:9),whocompiledadictionary
ofsoccerlanguageinGermancalledWörterbuchderFußballsprache,madethefollowingremark
onmetaphoricallanguageuseinfootballdiscourseintheintroductorysectionofthedictionary:
“DiewichtigstenPrinzipien,nachdeneneinGroßteilderfußballsprachlichenWörterundWen-
dungengebildetistundweiterhingebildetwird,sindMetapher,Metonymieunddievereinfa-
chendeAbstraktion.“Metaphorsareusedtoexplainandcommentontheeventsonthefield.
Forexample,thefollowingmetaphoricalexpressionscanbefound infootballcommentaries:
keep theirhopesof survivalalive,Ronaldoattacked thenearpost toarrive firstandburyhis
header,RealMadridstrucktwice,firingafree-kickintothebottomcornerofthenet,ora3-2
aggregatevictory.Likewise,inGermansoccercommentaries,phraseslikeersprengtdieMauer,
erattackiertRonaldo,derHSVerkämpfeinenSieggegenBayernLeverkusen,ineinemkampfbe-
tontenSpielhatsichBayernMünchendurchgesetzt,wirpackenallesauswaswirkämpferischin
unseremRucksackhaben,ordasDuellhabeichheutegrandiosverlorencanbefoundtodescribe
theprocesseson thepitch.All thoseexamplesare linguistic instantiationsof theconceptual
metaphorFOOTBALLISWAR.
SincemostresearchthathasbeendoneinthisfieldisbasedonCMT,analysisoffootballmeta-
phorsmostlyfocusesonconceptualmetaphorandtheidentificationandanalysisofcommon
sourceandtargetdomains.SummarizingthefindingsofthestudiesthatapplyCMTinmetaphor
researchonsoccerlanguage,themostextensivelyusedconceptualmetaphorisFOOTBALLISWAR,
orfollowingLewandowski’s(2012:80)lineofargument:“Oneofthemostdistinctivefeatures
ofsoccerlanguage(andofsportslanguageingeneral)istheprevalenceofwarmetaphor.”Bergh
andOhlander(2012a:36)putitbrieflyandsuccinctlybysayingthat“thereistheall-pervasive
‘mastermetaphor‘:‘Footballiswar‘.”Burkhardt(2006:9;emphasisinoriginal)makesasimilar
pointandjustifieshisstatementbygivingexamplesfromGerman:
WeilindenBallsportartenjeweilszweiParteienumSiegoderNiederlageringen,istzurBeschreibungderSpielevorallemdasBildvomKriegoderKampfinbesondererWeisegeeignet,dasvieleninzwischengängigenBezeichnungenzugrundeliegt.WowerdendieGegnerattackiertundderBallgeschossen.DerBomberderNationkanneineGranate ins obere linke Eckabfeuern oder einen Kopfballtorpedomachen.MankanndemGegnerinsoffeneMesserlaufen,wennmanaufdessenKontertaktikhereinfällt,mit offenem Visier kämpfen und das Spiel so zu einer offenen Feld-schlachtwerdenlassen,inderenVerlaufGegnerniedergemetzeltwerdenundanderenEndederBesiegtegeschlagenvomPlatzgeht.
ThissuggeststhatWAR isan importantsourcedomain, lendingstructurefromaconcretedo-
main,i.e.war,andsimplifyingthemorecomplexmatterFOOTBALL.Itallowsustomakeassocia-
tionsbetweenactivitiesintwodifferentconceptualdomains,i.e.warandsoccer.Thisrestson
theassumptionthatbothsoccerandwararehighlycompetitivewherenormallyaclearwinner
27
andlosercanbedetermined.Strategicthinking,teamwork,gloryofwinningandshameofde-
featarealsocharacteristicsofthetwodomains.Afootballgameisoftenreferredtoasabattle,
inwhichtheplayersaresoldiers,whogodownwithaninjurywhentheyarehurtandattempting
toscoreagoalisreferredtoasshooting(Bergh2011:84-85;Chapanga2004:66-67).Berghuses
examplesfromBritishnewspaperstodemonstratetheundeniablelinkbetweenwarandfoot-
ballandnotesthat“ourunderstandingofthegamenowadaysevendependsonit.”(Bergh2011:
84)Thefollowingexamples(6a-d)aretakenfromBergh(2011:84-85)forillustration:
(6) a. LiverpoolbeatArsenalaftertitanicbattle. b. FormercaptainDavidBeckhamnamedinEnglandsquad. c. WengerawaitsUnited’sheavyartillery. d. EvanstobecomefirstcasualtyofManchesterCityrevolution.
Theitalicizedwordsandphrasessuggeststhatthegameitselfcanbeseenasabattle,whose
participants(captainsandsquads)trytodefeateachotherthroughbeatingandusingweapons
(heavyartillery)toachievecertainconsequences,i.e.casualties,perhapsevenarevolution.Fur-
thermore,Burkhardt(2006:11)haspointedtotheuseofwarlikemetaphorsinGermanwhenit
comestotacticalbehaviorofplayersasinmitoffenemVisirkämpfen,forexample,referringto
aplayerwhoisadoptinganoffensivestyleofplay.
However, thePolish linguist Lewandowski (2012) took adifferent approach tometaphor re-
search in footballdiscourse,probably inresponsetothewidelydebatedsoccer-waranalogy.
Besideshavingarguedthatwarmetaphorsareindeedadominantphenomenoninsoccerre-
porting,Lewandowski(2012:80)suggeststhatfootballisnotonlywar,arguingthatsomemet-
aphorsdrawalessaggressiveimageoftheworld’smostpopularsport.Hestatesthat“football
canalsobeperceivedasanestheticallypleasingfieldofhumanactivity.”(Lewandowski2012:
80)Inhisstudy,Lewandowski(2012)arrivesatanumberofnon-violentsourcedomainsthatare
exploitedforconceptualizingthetargetdomainsoccer.Lewandowski’s(2012)findingsofthe
studyareillustratedinthefollowingexamples(7a-j):
(7) a. ASOCCERMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE:[…]andthewingerwoulddearlyloveforthegametobeadressrehearsalforthefinalineightmonths’time.(Lewandowski2012:82,emphasisinoriginal)
b. ASOCCERMATCHISATEST:Farfromtheirbest–infact,apaleshadowofthesidethatbrushedasidePortugal–they[theGermans]gaveusalessoninthemostimportantquality.Winningwhenyouareplayingbadly.(Lewandowski2012:84,emphasis inoriginal)
c. ASOCCERMATCHISFOOD:ThereturnmatchesintheChampionsLeagueRoundofSix-teenonTuesdaynightwereaveritablefeastfortheeyes.(Lewandowski2012:85,emphasisinoriginal)
28
d. FOOTBALLINGSUPERIORITYISROYALPOWER:CelticstrikerGeorgiosSamarashasdismissedRangersasaninferiorfootballingsidewhodon’tdeservetodethronethereigningSPLchampions.(Lewandowski2012:86,emphasisinoriginal)
e. ASOCCERTEAMISAMACHINE:That2-1defeatwasoflittleimportancethough,andatthequarter-finalstage,theMexicansbeganfiringonallcylindersagain.(Lewandowski2012:87,emphasisinoriginal)
f. ASOCCERTEAMISABUILDING:OffurtherencouragementtoArsenal,Guardiolamustre-build his central defence as suspensions deprive him of Gerard Piqué and CarlesPuyol.(Lewandowski2012:88,emphasisinoriginal)
g. ANOUTSTANDINGSOCCERPERFORMANCEISAWORKOFART:FabregasconjuresworkofarttodenyoutclassedLiverpool.(Lewandowski2012:88,emphasisinoriginal)
h. ANOUTSTANDINGSOCCERPERFORMANCEISMAGIC:PortsmouthhaveadmittedtheyhadtofivesorcererHarryRedknapp’soldjobtohisapprenticeTonyAdams.(Lewandowski2012:89,emphasisinoriginal)
i. ASOCCERMATCHISAJOURNEY/VOYAGE:After120minutesGhanaandonebillionAfricansthoughttheyhadreachedthepromisedland.(Lewandowski2012:90,emphasisinoriginal)
j. THEWINNINGTEAMISAHEAD;THELOSINGTEAMISBEHIND:TheNetherlandscamefrombe-hindtobreakBrazilianheartsandtakeahugesteptowardsathirdFIFAWorldCupfinalappearance.(Lewandowski2012:92,emphasisinoriginal)
Thelinguisticmetaphorsinexamples(7a-j),whicharehighlightedinbold,areinstantiationsof
aparticularconceptualmetaphorwhicharegiveninsmallcapitalletters.Lewandowski’s(2012)
studythusprovidesampleevidencethatfootballcannotonlybestructuredintermsofwarfare
butthattheconceptualizationofsoccerintermsofnon-violentdomainsisindeedpossible.
Thissummaryofresearchassociatedwiththeconceptualizationoffootballintermsofwaras
wellasLewandowski’saccountofothersourcedomainsthatareusedtoconceptualizefootball,
hasmotivatedthefollowingspecificresearchquestionsthatwillbeansweredintheempirical
chapterofthistheses:
RQ1 WhatmetaphorsaretypicallyusedinEnglishandGermanfootballcommentaries,i.e.whichsourcedomainscanbeidentified?
RQ2 IsthereadifferenceintermsofpreferredmetaphorsinEnglishandGerman?
Inthepresentaswellastheprevioussection,Ihaveintroducedthegeneraltheme,thetheoret-
icalframework,andthegeneralresearchquestionsofthisthesis.Thegeneralintroductionwas
followedbyadescriptionof thetheoreticalbackgroundontraditionalandcurrentmetaphor
research.Subsequently,themaintopicofthisthesiswasintroducedandputintoperspective:a
generaloverviewofthelanguageoffootballwasfollowedbyanoutlineofcurrentmetaphor
studies,sheddinglightonthepredominantFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorinsoccercom-
mentaries.Fromthis,Ihavepositionedmyresearchanddevelopedspecificresearchquestion
29
thatwillbeansweredintheempiricalsectionofthisthesis.Inthefollowingsection,Iwillintro-
ducethemetaphoridentificationprocedureasintroducedbythePragglejazGroup(2007)infull
technicaldetail.
30
4 METAPHORIDENTIFICATIONINDISCOURSE
Asthetitlesuggests,thissectionwillbedevotedtothepresentationofmetaphoridentification
indiscourse.Thefirstpartofthissectionintroducesthebasicdistinctionbetweentwodifferent
approachesthatcanbeappliedintheidentificationofmetaphorindiscourse,thatisthededuc-
tiveandinductivemethod.Secondly,althoughCMTisprobablytheprevalentapproachtomet-
aphorresearchandishighlyrespectedandrenownedwithincognitivelinguistics,ithasnever-
thelessbeenundercriticalscrutiny.Thesecondpartofthissectionisthereforesetouttooutline
thedifficultyofidentifyingmetaphorsindiscourseandthechallengesthatarefacedincognitive
approachestometaphoridentification.Subsequently,anoverviewwillbegivenofthelinguistic
metaphoridentificationandanalysisasproposedbythePragglejazGroup(2007),asthisproce-
durewillbeappliedinthepresentstudyinordertoidentifymetaphoricallyusedlanguagein
writtenminute-by-minutelivecommentaries.
4.1 Deductivevs.inductiveapproachestometaphoridentification
Foranaccurateaccountofthemethodologythatwillbeusedinthisstudy,it is importantto
makeadifferentiationbetweentwoapproachesthatcanbeappliedwhenusingcorporatore-
searchmetaphorindiscourse.Thisconcernsthedirectionofidentification,whichmaybeeither
leaningtowardsadeductive,orsocalledtop-downapproach,oraninductive,alsoreferredto
asbottom-upapproach.Ithasbeenmentionedthattheinductiveandthedeductivemethod
differintermsofthedirectionofinvestigationincorpusstudies.Specifically,thismeansthatthe
deductiveapproachadoptsamorehypothesis-drivenstrategy,whiletheinductivemethodex-
hibitsamoreopen-endedapproach,seekingtoidentifypatternsandregularitiesonthebasisof
specificobservations(Herrmann2013:72-73).
Whenapplyingthedeductiveapproachtofindingmetaphorindiscourseusingcorpora,theun-
derlyingresearchquestionthatonecouldstrivetoanswerinthiscontextmaybethefollowing:
WhicharethelinguisticinstancesofFOOTBALLISWARinminute-by-minutelivecommentaries?(cf.
Herrmann2013:72).Here,therangeoflinguisticmanifestationsoftheconceptualmetaphor
FOOTBALLISWARisexamined.Hence,thismethodreliesoninitiallyestablishedhypotheses,which
arethentestedandverifiedusingcorpora.Whenitcomestotheinductive(orbottom-up)iden-
tification,theresearchquestionthatcouldunderlietheresearchprojectcouldbethefollowing:
Whichlinguisticfeaturesaremetaphoricallyusedinminute-by-minutelivecommentaries?(cf.
Herrmann2013:73).
31
Incognitivelinguistics,thepredominantapproachtoidentifyingmetaphoristhedeductiveone
(Steen2007a:27).Steen(2007a:27)illustratesthisclaimwithafittingexamplefromthefamous
BritishmoveMaryPoppins,whereMaryandthetwochildreninhercarearepayingavisitto
BertandhisUncleAlbert,whoisbrimmingoverwithmirth,whichmakeshimhoverintheairin
thelivingroomwhileheissingingthesongILovetoLaugh.Everytimehehasanewfitoflaugh-
terherisesalittlemore.WhentheyalljoininUncleAlbert’slaughter,theytoosoarintotheair
towardstheceiling.Whentheywonderhowtogetbackdownagain,UncleAlberttellsthemto
thinkofsomethingsad.
Steen’s(2007a:27)descriptionofthissceneisjustifiedbytheclaimthat
[n]ocognitivelinguistcanviewthisscenewithoutbeingremindedoftheconcep-tualmetaphorHAPPYISUP.Allofthevisualimagesinthesceneareinstantiationsofpartsofthisconceptualmetaphor,anditishardtoavoidwatchingthescenewith-outbringingthisknowledgetobear.
ThescenefromMaryPoppinsaddsevenmorelinguisticmaterialforinvestigationwhenUncle
AlberttellsBert,whohasjoinedhimintheair,to“pullupachair”sothattheycansitdown.
Thisexample thus suggests that in cognitive linguistics, scholars tend toworkdeductively to
identifymetaphorinlanguage.Theexistenceofconceptualstructuresguidesthesearchforlin-
guisticmanifestationsofmetaphorinlanguage,“basedonthe(apriori)assumptionofrather
large-scalemappingsbetweenconceptualdomainsthatareexpressedbyvariousconventional
andnovelmetaphoricalexpressions.”(Herrmann2013:73).Steen(2007a:27)putsforwardthe
claimthat“[f]ormanycognitivelinguists,ithasbecomesecondnaturetoseeconcretemanifes-
tationsofconceptualmetaphorseverywhere.”Which, inthecaseofMaryPoppinsmayhold
true.However,inmanyothercases,thisobservationabouthowaparticularconceptualmeta-
phorcanleadtheresearchertoreliabledescriptionsoflinguisticorcognitivemetaphorsindis-
course,maybelessobvious(Steen2007a:27).
Hence,inadeductiveapproachtometaphoridentificationtheexistenceofpredeterminedcon-
ceptualmetaphorsisassumedandempiricallytested.Thistypeofresearchgoesfromconcep-
tualstructuretolinguisticforminwhich
casualrelationsareformulatedbetweentheconceptualstructureofmetaphorinusageandgrammar[…]ontheonehandandthelinguisticexpressionofmetaphorontheother[…].Thisrelationisareflectionofthefundamentalcognitive-linguisticideathatmetaphorinlanguageisderivedfrommetaphorinthought(Steen2007a:31).
Incontrasttothedeductiveapproach,aninductiveprocedureinvolvesamanualannotationof
metaphoricallyusedexpressions,which,asalreadymentionedabove,restrictscorpussizefor
32
practicalreasons.AccordingtoSteen(2007a:34)themaincontrastbetweeninductiveandde-
ductivemethodsofidentifyingmetaphorinlanguageandthoughtisthefactthat
inductivemethodsdonotassumethevalidityoreffectofconceptualmetaphors.Instead,theinductiveapproachproceedsonacasebycasebasis,orevenintermsofgroupsofcases,anddecidesforeachcaseorgroupwhatcanbeinferredabouttheir conceptual structure. If patterns areobservedacross cases, then tentativegeneralizationsmaybepostulated,butasarulethesedonotgoasfarasincludingentire systemsof conceptualmappingsbetween sourcedomains and target do-mainsortheirconceptualvariantsinothermodelsofmetaphor.
Asfarasthe inductiveapproach isconcerned,thedirectionof investigation is fromlinguistic
formthroughtomeaninginordertodevelopvalidgeneralizationsaboutlanguagemeaningand
use.Thisprocedureinvolveslookingforregularitiesandpatterns.Deignan(2005:92)suggests
that“corpusanalysisofsemanticissuessuchasmetaphormustbebottom-upratherthantop-
down.”
4.2 Kudos,challengesandcriticism
InspiteofCMT’sgreatsuccessoverthepastthreedecades,ithashadtotakenumerouscriticism
bothfromscholarswithinandoutsidecognitive-linguisticmetaphorstudies. Ithasbeencriti-
cizedfortwomainreasons:Firstly,theissueofmethodologyandsecondly,theissueofthedi-
rectionofanalysis.Inthefollowing,thesepointswillbediscussedinturn(Kövecses2008:168).
Onegeneralissueindoingresearchonmetaphorsisthefactthattherearenoestablishedpro-
ceduresinmetaphoridentification,meaningthatthereiseverychancethatifanumberofpeo-
plelookatthesametext,theywouldmostlikelyselectdifferentmetaphors(PragglejazGroup,
2007,pp.1-2).AccordingtothePragglejazGroup(2007:1-2)thereisnoreliablestatisticalagree-
mentamongresearchersaboutwhatconstitutesametaphoricwordorphrase.Theprimarydif-
ficultywithmetaphorstudies,asidentifiedbythePragglejazGroup(2007:1-2),isthat“scholars
oftendonotprovidecriteriaintheirempiricalinvestigationsforspecifyingwhatis,andwhatis
not,metaphorical”.Thereisalsoanongoingdebateamongresearchersaboutthelackofagreed
criteriaandanexplicitmethodologyfortheidentificationandanalysisofmetaphorinlanguage
inCMT(Herrmann2013:27).ThePragglejazGroup(2007)haspointedtotheneedforaclear
distinctionbetweenwhatconstitutesametaphor,andwhatdoesnot,inmetaphorresearch.
Furthermore,itiscriticizedthatresearchersinCMTmostlyworkwithintuitivelyandunsystem-
aticallyfoundlinguisticmetaphorsasthebasisforfindingconceptualmetaphors.Thatistosay,
researchersinCMTbasetheirassumptionsondatawhichtheyextractedfromtheirownmental
33
lexiconsordatafoundindictionariesandthesauri.Fromthis,theyarriveatandsuggestconcep-
tualmetaphors.Thechargeisthattheirevidenceisbasedonartificiallyconstructedratherthan
reallivedata,ascanbefoundincorporaforexample(Kövecses2008:168-169).
However,attemptshavebeenmadetoovercomethisdifficulty.Herrmann(2013:51)notedthat
“recentmetaphorstudieshavehighlightedthatrelyingoverlyonintuitionhamperstheidentifi-
cationofmetaphorasanintersubjectivelyobservable‘factoftheworld’”.Withtheintroduction
ofthemetaphoridentificationprocedure(henceforthMIP)thePragglejazGrouphavetriedto
establishasystematicmethodologyinidentifyingmetaphorinlanguage.Inthesubsequentsec-
tion itwillbepresentedwhatattemptshavebeenmade inorder tocontrol the influenceof
subjectivityondecisionsaboutwhatcountsasametaphorandwhatnot,iftheoverallaimin
metaphorresearchistoproduceobservableandobjectiveevidenceonwhatisandwhatisnot
metaphoricallanguage.Therefore,themetaphoridentificationprocedureasproposedbyare-
searchgroupcalledthePragglejazGroupwillbepresentedinsection4.2.
Thesecondpointofcriticismiscloselyrelatedtothepreviousoneandcentersaroundthedi-
rectionofanalysis,meaning,theissuewhetheratop-downorbottom-upapproachtometaphor
identificationshouldbeapplied(Kövecses2008:170).AccordingtoKövecses(2008:170),within
acognitivelinguisticframework,linguisticmetaphorshavetraditionallybeenidentifiedinade-
ductiveway.ThisisduetothefactthatresearcherswithinCMTpostulateconceptualmetaphors
basedonarathersmallnumberofdecontextualizedexamples,i.e.linguisticmetaphors.From
thistheyexaminetheinternalstructureofconceptualmetaphor,meaning,theysetupmappings
andentailments.Whathasbeenundercriticalscrutinyhereisthefactthattheidentificationof
metaphor merely involves locating suitable metaphors (Low & Todd 2010: 224). Herrmann
(2013:73)notesthatthedeductivewayhasbeencriticizedforbeingimpreciseinmainlytwo
ways.Firstly,thetop-downapproachtometaphoridentificationhasastrongintuitivebasis.This
concernsthesummationoflinguisticevidenceasmanifestationofaparticularconceptualmet-
aphor,aswellasthefactthatmanyexamplesareinventedratherthantakenfromnatural,real-
lifediscourse.Thesecond,andprobablythemostimportantconcernregardingthedeductive
approach,isthefactthatitispronetooverlookunexpectedlinguisticmetaphors,sinceittries
totestwhetheracertainconceptualmetaphorcanbeidentifiedandverifiedindiscourse.This
isthecasebecausethedeductiveapproachdoesnotincludeanopen-endedexplorationofother
typesandformsofmetaphor.
Theinductivemethodforidentifyingmetaphorindiscoursehasalsocomeunderfiercecriticism.
Whathasbeenmostlycriticizedhereisthelackofclearlydefinedcriteriafordefiningandiden-
tifyingmetaphor.However,thesecriteriashouldnotbetoorestrictedandspecifiedopenly,as
34
otherwise,thereisariskofproducinginvalidevidence.Herrmann(2013:74)putsforwardthe
claimthat“[i]ftheaimistoproduceintersubjectivelyobservableevidence,thentheinfluence
ofsubjectivityondecisionsaboutwhatcountsasametaphorandwhatnotneedstobecon-
trolledasmuchaspossible.”InthefollowingsectionIwillpresenttheattemptsthathavebeen
madeinordertoovercomethisissue.
4.3 ThePragglejazprocedureforfindingmetaphoricallyusedwords
ThePragglejazGroup4isaninternationalgroupofmetaphorresearcherswhojoinedforcesand
startedthemetaphoridentificationprocedure(MIP)in2007.Accordingtothem,itisaprecise
methodforidentifyingmetaphoricallyusedwordsandphrasesindiscourse(Steen2007b:11-
12).ThemainobjectiveofthePragglejazmethodwastodevelopaninstrumentformetaphor
identificationindiscourse“thatisbothreliableasindicatedbystatisticaltestsandvalidinthat
itattemptstomakeexplicithowitmakesuseofcurrentempiricalresearchincognitivelinguis-
tics,discourseanalysis,psycholinguistics,andappliedlinguistics.”(Steen2007b:12)Asthethe-
oreticalframeworkforthisprojectacognitivelinguisticapproachtometaphorwithabroadview
ofdiscourseanalysiswaschosen,aswellasLakoffandJohnson’sviewofmetaphorasacross-
domainmappingwasadopted(Steen2007b:12).Further, incontrasttootherapproachesto
identifymetaphorindiscourse,theMIPdoesnotstartfromconsideringa“preconceivedsetof
conceptualmetaphorsfromwhichtobasefurtheridentificationofmetaphoricallyusedwords.”
(PragglejazGroup,2007,p.33).With theseconsiderationsasa startingpoint, thePragglejaz
Groupattemptedtoformulateapreciseprocedureformetaphoridentificationinnaturaldis-
course.Afterseveraltentativeversionsthatwereapplied,testedandrevisedthefinalversion
ofafour-stepprocedurewaspublishedin2007.
Theprocedureisthefollowing:
1. Readtheentiretext-discoursetoestablishageneralunderstandingofthemeaning.
2. Determinethelexicalunitsinthetext-discourse.
3. (a) Foreachlexicalunitinthetext,establishitsmeaningincontext,thatis,howitappliestoanentity,relation,orattributeinthesituationevokedbythe(contex-tualmeaning).Takeintoaccountwhatcomesbeforeandafterthelexicalunit.
(b) Foreachlexicalunit,determineifithasamorebasiccontemporarymeaninginothercontextsthantheoneinthegivencontext.Forourpurposes,basicmeaningstendtobe
4ThenamePragglejazisformedbytheinitialsofthefirstnamesofthetenmembersofthegroup:PeterCrisp,RayGibbs,AlanCienki,GerardSteen,GrahamLow,LynneCameron,ElenaSemino,JosephGrady,AliceDeignanandZoltánKövecses(cf.Semino2008:11;Steen2007b:11-12)
35
- Moreconcrete[whattheyevokeiseasiertoimagine,see,hear,feel,smell,andtaste];
- Relatetobodilyaction;- Moreprecise(asopposedtovague);- Historicallyolder;Basicmeaningsarenotnecessarilythemost frequentmeaningsofthe lexicalunit.
(c) Ifthelexicalunithasamorebasiccurrent-contemporarymeaninginothercon-textsthanthegivencontext,decidewhetherthecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaningbutcanbeunderstoodincomparisonwithit.
4. Ifyes,markthelexicalunitasmetaphorical.
Exactlyhowtheprocedure isapplied inpracticewill firstbe illustratedwithanexampledis-
cussedintheliterature(Group2007:3-13).Theexamplesentencewastakenfromanewspaper
articlefromTheIndependenttitled“SoniaGandhistakesclaimfortopjobwithdenunciationof
Vajpayee”.
/For/years/,SoniaGandhi/has/struggled/to/convince/Indians/that/she/is/fit/to/
wear/the/mantle/of/the/political/dynasty/into/which/she/married/,letalone/to
/become/premier/.
For
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thepreposition“for”indicatestemporalduration,thatis,itintroducesanounphrase(years)thatindicatestheperiodoftimespannedbytheaction/processreferredtobythemainverbphraseinthesentence(hasstruggled).
(b) basicmeaning:Thepreposition“for”canbeusedtointroducethebeneficiaryorrecip-ientofanaction,ofteninvolvingthetransferofaphysicalentityfromonepersontoanother(e.g.,I’vebroughtacupofteaforyou).Thiscouldberegardedasthebasicmeaningofthepreposition.Thisisthefirstsenseof“for”inthecontemporarydiction-aryused[…].
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastwiththebasicmeaning.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
years
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“year”indicatesalongperiodoftimeencompass-ingseveralcalendaryears.Theuseof“years”emphasizesthelengthoftherelevantperiodoftime,ratherthandemarcatingitwithanyprecision.
(b) basicmeaning:Themostbasicmeaningofyearisthecynicalperiodoftimeinwhichtheearthcompletesafullrevolutionaroundthesun,consistingof365or366(alt-houghtheprecisenumberofdaysisnotnecessarilypartofthebasicmeaning).
36
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisverycloselyre-latedtothebasicmeaninganddoesnotsignificantlycontrastwithit.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
SoniaGhandi[sic]
(a) contextualmeaning:Thepropernamereferstoaspecific,uniquelyidentifiableindivid-ualinaparticularhistoricalandgeographicalcontext.
(b) basicmeaning:Thepropernamedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
has
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“has”istheoperatorintheverbphrase“hasstruggled,”whereitsignalsagreementwiththesingulargrammaticalsubject“SoniaGhandi,”[sic]andexpressesanaspectualmeaning,thatis,itindicatesthattherele-vantaction/processstartedinthepastandhasnotyetbeencompleted.
(b) basicmeaning:Asanauxiliaryverb,tohavedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.Asalexicalverb,tohavehasthemorebasicmeaningofpossession(prototypicallyinvolv-ingphysicalobjects).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsidertohaveasanauxiliaryverb,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemetohaveasawhole,thecontextualmeaningcontrastswithamorebasicmeaning.How-ever,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
struggled
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“struggled”indicateseffort,difficultyandlackofsuccessinachievingagoal,namelychangingotherpeople’snegativeviewsandatti-tudes.
(b) basicmeaning:Thebasicmeaningoftheverbtostruggleistouseone’sphysicalstrengthagainstsomeoneorsomething,asinShepickedupthechild,buthestruggledandkicked.Theevidencecitedintheetymologicaldictionaryconsulted,theShorterOxfordDictionaryonHistoricalPrinciples,alsosuggeststhatthismeaningishistoricallyprior(p.2,157).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaningandcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandab-stracteffort,difficulty,oppositionandconflictintermsofphysicaleffort,difficulty,op-positionandconflict.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes.
37
to
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“to”hasthepurelygrammaticalfunctionofsignal-ingtheinfinitiveformoftheverb.Hence,ithasaveryabstractandschematic“mean-ing.”
(b) basicmeaning:Asaninfinitivemarker,todoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.Asapreposition,tohasthemorebasicmeaningofintroducingtheendpointordestinationofmovementinphysicalspace,asinTherearedailyflightstoBoston.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsidertoasaninfinitivemarker,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemetoasawhole,thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasic,spatialmeaningoftheprep-ositionto.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No
convince
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“convince”meanstopersuadealargenumberofpeopletochangetheirviewsaboutSoniaGhandi’s[sic]suitabilityasapoliticalleader.
(b) basicmeaning:Theverbconvincedoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
Indians
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“Indians”referstotheinhabitantsofcontempo-raryIndia,andparticularlythosewhohavetherighttovoteinelections.
(b) basicmeaning:ThebasicmeaningofIndiansisallinhabitantsofIndia.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningdoesnotsignifi-
cantlycontrastwiththebasicmeaning,and,inanycase,isnotunderstoodbycompari-sonwiththemoregeneralmeaning
Metaphoricallyused?No.
that
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“that”hasthepurelygrammaticalfunctionofsig-nalinggrammaticalsubordination:itintroducesthedirectobject-complementoftheverbtoconvince.Hence,ithasaveryabstractandschematicmeaning.
(b) basicmeaning:Asacomplementizer-subordinatingconjunction,thatdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemethatasawhole,thedemonstrativepronoun-determinerthathasthebasicphysicalmeaningofindicatingthataparticularreferentcanbeidentifiedasbeingspatiallydistantfromthespeaker(ordeicticcenter)inthesituationevokedbythetext,asinGivemethathammer.
38
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsiderthatasacomplementiser-subordinatingconjunction,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemethatasawhole,thecontextualmeaningcontrastswithamorebasicmeaning.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No
she
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“she”indicatesafemalereferentwhoisuniquelyidentifiableinthesituationevokedbythetext.
(b) basicmeaning:Thepronounshedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
is
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“is”introducesa(possibleorhypothetical)prop-ertyofaparticularreferentinthetextworld:SoniaGhandi[sic].
(b) basicmeaning:Asacopular-linkingverb,tobeasawhole,theverbalsohasthemean-ingofindicatingexistence.However,thismeaningisratherformalincontemporaryEnglish,andcannoteasilyberegardedasthebasicmeaningoftheverb.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
fit
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“fit”indicatessuitabilitytoplayaparticular(pub-lic)role.Itthereforereferstopersonalqualitiessuchasleadership,integrity,talent,independence,andsoon.
(b) basicmeaning:Theadjectivefithasadifferentmeaningtodowithbeinghealthyandphysicallystrong,asinRunningaroundafterthechildrenkeepsmefit.Wenotethatthe“suitability”meaningishistoricallyolderthanthe“healthy”meaning;theShorterOxfordEnglishDictionaryonHistoricalPrinciples(SOEDHP)givesthe“Suitability”meaningasfrommedievalEnglishandusedinShakespeare,whereastheearliestrec-ordofthesportmeaningis1869.However,wedecidedthatthe“healthy”meaningcanbeconsideredasmorebasic[…]becauseitreferstowhatisdirectlyphysicallyex-perienced.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastwiththebasicmeaningandcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandab-stractsuitabilityintermsofphysicalheathandstrength.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes.
39
to
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“to”hasthepurelygrammaticalfunctionofsignal-ingtheinfinitiveformoftheverb.Hence,ithasaveryabstractandschematic“mean-ing.”
(b) basicmeaning:Asaninfinitivemarker,todoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.Asapreposition,tohasthemorebasicmeaningofintroducingtheendpointordestinationofmovementinphysicalspace,asinTherearedailyflightstoBoston.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsidertoasaninfinitivemarker,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemetoasawhole,thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasic,spatialmeaningoftheprep-ositionto.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No
wear
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,theidiomaticexpression“wearthemantle”meanstohavealeadingrolewithinafamilywhosemembershaverecentlyoccupiedpositionsofhighofficeinaparticulardemocraticsystem.Thecontextualmeaningof“wear”ishaveorbear,andthecontextualmeaningof“mantle”isthefamilialrespon-sibility.
(b) basicmeaning:ThebasicmeaningofwearinwearthemantleisdefinedasthefirstsenseofthewordintheMacmillandictionaryasfollows:“tohavesomethingonyourbodyasclothing,decorationorprotection”(p.1,622).TheSOEDHPindicatesthatthismeaningisalsohistoricallyprior(p.1,274).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaningandcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandtheprocessoffollowingfamilymembersinhavingaprominentpoliticalroleintermsofphysicallywearingtheitemofclothingthatsymbolizesroyalpower.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes.
the
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“the”hasthegrammaticalfunctionofindicatingdefinitereference.
(b) basicmeaning:Thedefinitearticlethedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
mantle
40
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“mantle”referstotherolethattheGhandi[sic]familyhasplayedinthepoliticalleadershipofIndia.
(b) basicmeaning:Thebasicmeaningofmantleisanold-fashionedpieceofclothingnowusuallyonlywornbypeopleinpower,suchasmonarchs,asasymboloftheirposition.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaningandcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandtheroleofpoliticalleadershipthatsomeonemaytakeoninademocracyafterothermem-bersoftheirfamilyintermsofthegarmentthatistraditionallywornbyamonarch.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes.
of
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thepreposition“of”hastheabstract,grammaticalmeaningofindicatingarelationshipbetweentwoentitiesinthesituationevokedbythetext.
(b) basicmeaning:Theprepositionofdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
the
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“the”hasthegrammaticalfunctionofindicatingdefinitereference:Itindicatesthatthereferentofthenounphraseofwhichitispartisuniquelyidentifiableinthesituationevokedbythetext;inthiscase,thisistheGhandi[sic]familyasamajorplayerinrecentIndianpolitics.
(b) basicmeaning:Thedefinitearticlethedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
political
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“political”indicatesthepropertyofbeingrelatedtopolitics,andparticularlypower,influence,andgovernmentinIndia.
(b) basicmeaning:Theadjectivedoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
dynasty
41
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“dynasty”referstotheGhandi[sic]family,andspecificallytothefactthatvariousmembersofthefamilysuccessivelyplayedanim-portantroleinIndianpolitics,andruledthecountryforconsiderableperiodsoftime.
(b) basicmeaning:Itcanbearguedthatdynastyhasthemorebasicmeaningofaroyalfamilyinamonarchicsystem,wherepowerisinheritedfromonegenerationtothenext.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaning,andcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandthewayinwhichdifferentmembersofafamilysuccessivelyacquirepowerinademocracyintermsofthewayinwhichsuccessivemembersofaroyalfamilyinheritthethronewithinamonarchicsystem.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes
into
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thepreposition“into”introducesafamilygroupthatSoniaGhandi[sic]hasbecomeamemberofviamarriage.
(b) basicmeaning:Theprepositionintohasthemorebasicmeaningofintroducingacon-tainerorboundedareathatisenteredviaphysicalmovement,asinShegotintohercaranddroveaway.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaning,andcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandso-cial-kinshipgroupsascontainers,andtheprocessofbecomingamemberofagroupasenteringacontaineroraspace.
Metaphoricallyused?Yes.
which
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“which”functionsasarelativepronounandhastheabstract,grammaticalfunctionofreferringbacktothereferentoftheheadofthenounphrasewithinwhichtherelativeclausesembedded,“dynasty.”
(b) basicmeaning:Asarelativepronoun,whichdoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemewhichasawhole,thepronoun-determineralsohasaninterrogativemeaning,whichmayberegardedasmorebasic.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsiderwhichasarelativepronoun,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemewhichasawhole,thepronoun-determinerhasamorebasic,interrogativemeaning.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunder-stoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No
she
42
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“she”indicatesafemalereferentwhoisuniquelyidentifiableinthesituationevokedbythetext.
(b) basicmeaning:Thepronounshedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
married
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“married”referstotheprocesswherebySoniaMainobecameRajivGhandi’s[sic]spouse,andtherebyamemberoftheirfamily.
(b) basicmeaning:Theverbmarrydoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
letalone
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“letalone”introducesahypotheticalscenarioinwhichSoniaGhandi[sic]becomesPrimeMinisterofIndia,thatispresentedasevenlesslikelytohappenthanthepreviouslymentionedhypotheticalscenarioinwhichSoniaGhandi[sic]isfittotakeonthepoliticalinheritanceofothermembersoftheGhandi[sic]family.
(b) basicmeaning:Asasinglelexicalunit,letalonedoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
to
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“to”hasthepurelygrammaticalfunctionofsignal-ingtheinfinitiveformoftheverb.Hence,ithasaveryabstractandschematic“mean-ing”.
(b) basicmeaning:Asaninfinitivemarker,todoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.Asapreposition,tohasthemorebasicmeaningofintroducingtheendpointofdestinationofmovementinphysicalspace,asinTherearedailyflightstoBoston.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Ifweconsidertoasaninfinitivemarker,thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.Ifweconsiderthelexemetoasawhole,thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasic,spatialmeaningoftheprep-ositionto.However,wehavenotfoundawayinwhichthecontextualmeaningcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwiththebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
43
become
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“become”referstoaprocessofchangewherebySoniaGhandi[sic]acquiresaparticular,political,[sic]role.
(b) basicmeaning:Itcanbearguedthatbecomehasamorebasicmeaningtodowithstartingtohavedifferentproperties,asinPeoplearebecomingincreasinglyangryaboutthedelay,butwedonotregardthismeaningassubstantiallydifferentfromthecontextualmeaning.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No.
premier
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,“premier”referstothepositionofPrimeMinisterofIndia,thatis,leaderofthegovernment.
(b) basicmeaning:Thenounpremierdoesnothaveadifferent,morebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Metaphoricallyused?No
Inthefollowing, theMIPwillbeappliedtoonesentence,describing it inexemplary fashion.
Therefore,onelivecommentaryofonefootballgamewasselectedoutofwhichonespecifically
selectedexamplewillbeanalyzedaccordingto theproceduredescribedabove.Thetext isa
commentaryofafootballmatch,namelyWestBromwichAlbionvs.HullCityatTheHawthorns
football stadium inWestBromwich,Englandheldon January2,2017.Theprocedurewillbe
carriedoutassuggestedbythePragglejazGroup(2007).Atstep1,areadingofthetextreveals
thatitisalivecommentaryofthefootballgameinquestion,revealinganddescribingthemost
importanteventsthathappenedduringthefootballmatch,givingthereaderanaptillustration
ofthegame.
Atstep2,thelexicalunitsinthesentenceareidentifiedinthefollowingway,usingslashesin
ordertoindicatetheboundariesbetweenlexicalunits:
Hull/just/give/us/a/reminder/that/they’re/not/dead/and/buried/asyet/.
Step3isconcernedwithconsideringeachlexicalunitinturnassuggestedforeachofthethree
partsofstep3 (3a-c) in theprocedureoutlinedabove.Morespecifically, thismeansthat for
eachidentifiedlexicalunit(a)thecontextualmeaning,(b)thebasicmeaningand(c)thecontex-
tualmeaningisputincontrastwiththebasicmeaning.Fordeterminingthecurrentbasicmean-
ingofalexicalunit,theMacmillanOnlineDictionary(2017)isconsulted.
44
Hull
(d) contextualmeaning:ThepropernamereferstoaprofessionalfootballclubinHull,England.
(e) basicmeaning:Thepropernamedoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(f) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisthusnotusedmetaphorically.
just
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,justfunctionsasanadverb,meaning“notbetter,worse,moreimportantetcthanwhatyouarementioning”(MM,entryjust,accessed25April2017).
(b) basicmeaning:Asanadverb,justdoesnothaveadifferentbasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisthusnotusedmetaphorically.
give
(d) contextualmeaning:Inthegivencontextgivefunctionsasatransitiveverbmeaning“toshoworcommunicateinformation”(MM,entrygive,accessed25April2017).
(e) basicmeaning:Thereisnootherbasicmeaningofgive.(f) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
us
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,usisusedastheobjectformofwe.(b) basicmeaning:Thepronounusdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
a
(a) contextualmeaning:Aisusedasanindefinitearticle,followedbythesingularcounta-blenounreminder.
(b) basicmeaning:Thearticleadoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
45
reminder
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thenounreminderreferstothefollowingsuccess-fulactionofaplayerofHull:“SnodgrasssendsinagoodcornerthatDaviesgetshisheadto”.Itservesasareminderthattheyarestillactiveinthegame.
(b) basicmeaning:Thebasicmeaningofreminderreferstoathingthatservestoremind.Thenounreminderthusdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaninginthegivencontext.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
that
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thatfunctionsasaconjunctionconnectingtwoclauses.
(b) basicmeaning:Theconjunctionthatdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
they
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,theyreferstothesoccerplayersofthefootballclubHullCity.
(b) basicmeaning:AccordingtotheMacmillanonlinedictionarythebasicmeaningoftheyis“usedforreferringtoagroupofpeopleorthingsthathavealreadybeenmentionedorthatarealreadyknownabout”(MM,entrythey,accessed26April2017).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningdoesnotdifferfromthebasicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
are
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thethirdpersonpluraloftheverbtobefunctionsasacopular-linkingverbandindicatesthattheplayersofHullCityarestillactivelyin-volvedinthegame.
(b) basicmeaning:Thecopularverbtobefunctionsasanindicatorofexistenceandisusedforgivinginformationaboutsomeoneorsomething(MM,entrytobe,accessed26April2017).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthebasicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
not
46
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthegivencontext,theadverbnotisusedformakingtheex-pressiondeadandburiednegative.
(b) basicmeaning:Theadverbnotdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaningthaninthiscon-text.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningdoesnotdifferfromthebasicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
dead
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thenegationofdeadisusedtoindicatethattheplayersofHullarestillactivelyinvolvedinthegame.
(b) basicmeaning:Themostbasicsenseoftheadjectivedeadreferstosomeonewhoisnolongeralive.Thenegationofdeadthusindicatesthatsomeoneisstillalive.
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaning,andcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandac-tiveandsuccessfulparticipationinthegameasbeingalive.
Itisusedmetaphorically.
and
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,andfulfillsthefunctionofconnectingtwowordstogether
(b) basicmeaning:Theconjunctionanddoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
buried
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthiscontext,thenegationofburyindicatesthattheplayersofHullarestillactivelyandsuccessfullyparticipatinginthegame.
(b) basicmeaning:Theverbburyisoftenusedinpassivevoice.It’sbasicmeaningreferstosomeone’sdeadbodythatisputinthegroundduringafuneralceremony(MM,entrybury,accessed26April2017).
(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaning,andcanbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit:Wecanunderstandac-tiveandsuccessfulparticipationinthegameasnotbeingburied.
Itisusedmetaphorically.
asyet
47
(a) contextualmeaning:Inthegivencontextthephraseasyetis“usedtotalkaboutsomethingthathasnothappenedorbeendoneuptonow”(MM,entryasyet,ac-cessed25April2017).
(b) basicmeaning:Thephraseasyetdoesnothaveamorebasicmeaning.(c) contextualmeaningversusbasicmeaning:Thecontextualmeaningisthesameasthe
basicmeaning.
Itisnotusedmetaphorically.
Thisanalysisyieldstheresultthattwooutofthethirteenlexicalunits inthissinglesentence
werejudgedasbeingusedmetaphorically.ThisexplicationoftheMIPisnotonlyintendedto
illustratehowtheprocedureworksbutalsoaimsatdemonstratingdecisionsresearchersmust
makeinjudgingifawordisusedmetaphoricallyindiscourseornot.Thisdependsonthedeci-
sionuponaword’s(orlexicalunit’s)basicmeaninganditsdeviationfromthecontextualmean-
ing.Thereisofcourseahighprobabilitythatpeoplemightmakedifferentdecisionsonwhat
shouldbejudgedasmetaphoricalinacertaincontext.Asfarastheidentificationofmetaphori-
callanguageindiscourseisconcerned,thedegreeofconventionality,thatis,howdeeplyen-
trenchedametaphor is ineveryday languageuse, isequallydetermining.The reason is that
familiarconceptsaredeeplyentrenchedinourmemoryandthattheiractivationdoesnotre-
quirecognitiveeffortbuthasbecomeahighlyautomatedroutine.Thisprocess,however,varies
ofcoursefrompersontopersonandisdependentontheperson’sculture,personalityaswell
asinterests.Hence,metaphorscometobeentrenchedandtheiractivationautomateddepend-
ingontheextentthattheyhavebeenusedbefore.AccordingtoLangacker(1987:59),thereis
a
continuousscaleofentrenchmentincognitiveorganization.Everyuseofastruc-turehasapositiveimpactonitsdegreeofentrenchment,whereasextendedperiodofdisusehaveanegative impact.Withrepeateduse,anovelstructurebecomesprogressivelyentrenched,tothepointofbecomingaunit;moreover,unitsarevar-iablyentrencheddependingonthefrequencyoftheiroccurrence.
Entrenchmentisthusfosteredbyrepetition.Incurrentmetaphorstudies,wellestablishedand
deeplyentrenchedmetaphorsarereferredtoasconventionalmetaphors(Kövecses2010:33-
34). Inmetaphor identification thus thedegreeof conventionality ofmetaphorplays an im-
portantpart,morespecifically,thatis,“howdeeplyentrenchedametaphorisineverydayuse
byordinarypeopleforeverydaypurposes.”(Kövecses2010:33)Therefore,peoplefamiliarwith
thelanguageusedinfootballcommentariesmaynotcometothesameconclusionasregards
metaphoricallyusedwordsintheexampleabove.Fromthiscanbederivedthatthedegreeof
conventionalitydetermineswhetherspeakersidentifyexpressionsasbeingmetaphoricalornot.
48
Thisisawidelydiscusseddebateamongmetaphorscholarsandthisiswherethepurposeofthe
MIPcomesin.ThePragglejazGroup(2007:13)notethattheMIP’sgreatachievementisthatit
enablesresearcherstoexactlylocatetheirdisagreementastowhy,orwhynotalexicalunitis
viewedasconveyingmetaphoricalmeaningincontext.Thishasbeenmadepossiblebythede-
scriptionofanexplicitsetofstepsbythePragglejazGroup.
Further,thisexplicationofMIPasappliedtooneexamplesentence isalso intendedtoshow
thattheMIPidentifiesmetaphorsonalinguistic,ratherthanonaconceptuallevel.Theinten-
tionsofthePragglejazGroupfordevelopingMIPwasnottostartoutwithalreadypreconceived
stetsofconceptualmetaphors.Theynotethat“thepurposeofMIPistoprovideaprocedure
thatstartsfromtheactualdiscourse,andinductivelybuildsthecaseforwhyaparticularword
wasusedmetaphorically incontext.”This is importanttonote,consideringthatthisthesis is
locatedwithinacognitivelyinformedframeworkandtakesCMTasitsbasis.Therefore,inthe
analysisundertakeninthisstudyafurtherstepwillbenecessary.Thisstepwillinvolvedeter-
miningwhichconceptualmetaphorunderliesthemetaphoricallinguisticexpressionidentified
indiscourse.
Iwouldliketotakeuptheanalysisoftheexamplesentencetakenfromthefootballcommen-
tary,Hullgiveusareminderthattheyarenotdeadandburiedasyet.TheapplicationofMIP
yieldstheresultthatthewordsdeadandburiedarejudgedasbeingusedmetaphoricallyinthe
givencontext.Whenlookingattheexampleinitscontextitbecomesclearwhatdeadandburied
referto:
NotawholelothappeningoutonthepitchatthemomentasWestBromlooktohavethethreepointsinthebag.TheycanendthematchdayashighasseventhifEvertonfailtowin.Hulljustgiveusareminderthatthey'renotdeadandburiedasyet.SnodgrasssendsinagoodcornerthatDaviesgetshisheadtoatthenearpost,butthekeepermakesafinesavetopreservehisside'sadvantage.
ThecornerthattheplayerSnodgrassfromHullCitysentinisdescribedbythecommentatoras
areminderthattheplayersfromHullCityarenotdeadandburiedyet.Theanalysisshowsthat
notdeadandburiedreferstotheentityofthefootballplayersfromHullwhoaredoingtheir
besttokeepupthegamewithagoodperformance,i.e.agoodcorner.Itisclearthatthecon-
ceptsDEATHandBEINGBURIEDcannotbeliterallyappliedtotheentityreferredtobyFOOTBALLPLAY-
ERSDEMONSTRATINGAGOODPERFORMANCE.Theirgoodperformancesuggeststhattheyarenotdead
andburiedyet,meaningthattheyarestillalive,thatissurviving.Hence,theunderlyingcross-
domainmappingthatcanbeidentifiedhereistheconceptualizationofsuccessintermsofsur-
viving,yieldingtheconceptualmetaphorSUCCESSISSURVIVING.
49
Tosumup,thetaskofthissectionwasto introducethenotionofmetaphor identification in
discourseasthisprovidesthebasisforthedatacollectionfortheresearchprojectunderlying
thisthesis.Ihavethusillustratedthetwodifferentdirectionsofanalysisthatcanbetakenwhen
identifyingmetaphorsindiscourse,thatistheinductiveandthedeductivemethod.Itwasshown
thatthedirectionofanalysislargelydependsonwhattheanalystsseekstoinvestigate.Inthis
thesis,amixedapproachwillbeusedtoidentifymetaphorsindiscourse,thatisboth,theinduc-
tiveandthedeductiveprocedurewillbeappliedintheundertakingofidentifyingmetaphorsin
footballdiscourse.Thiswasfollowedbyanaccountoftheproblemsandchallengesthatmeta-
phoridentificationandanalysisposeswithinthecognitiveparadigm.Thefistproblemthathas
been identifieddirectly follows fromthedirectionofanalysis.The secondproblem ismainly
attributedtothefactthatmetaphoridentificationingenerallacksasystematicmethodological
foundation.Further,thissectionintroducedtheattemptthathasbeenmadetoovercomethose
methodologicalproblemsandhavethusprovidedacomprehensivedescriptionofthemetaphor
identificationprocedureasproposedbythePragglejazGroup(2007),asthiswillprocedurewill
beappliedtoidentifymetaphorinfootballdiscourseintheresearchprojectunderlyingthisthe-
sis.
50
5 DATAANDMETHODOLOGY
Thetaskofthepresentandthefollowingsectionsistodescribetheresearchprojectunderlying
mythesis.Whilesection6and7willfocusonthepresentationanddiscussionofthefindingsof
thestudy,thesectionathandconstitutesanoutlineoftheproject itself,that isthewayit is
conductedandthekindofdatathatitinvolves.Specifically,Iwillgiveanoverviewofthematerial
that isusedasbasisofmyanalysis,which thusmakesup thecorpus fromwhich thedata is
collected.Inaddition,challengesandlimitationsthatarefacedwhendesigningandcompilinga
corpusonone’sownareaddressed.Further, in themethodologysection itwillbeexplained
how thedata isobtained. This involvesaquantitativeandaqualitativeanalysisof thedata.
While thequantitativeanalysiswillmeasure thedistributionofmetaphoracrossEnglishand
Germanwrittenminute-by-minutelivecommentaries,thetaskofthequalitativeanalysisonthe
onehandistoidentifyinstancesoftheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISWAR,andontheother
handdetermineothersourcedomainswhichhelptoconceptualizethedescriptionofeventson
thesoccerfield.Finally,thelimitationsthatareinherentintheresearchdesignandtheproblems
thatwereencounteredduringtheresearchprojectwillbeaddressed.
5.1 Compilingacorpus
Theaimofthepresentandthesubsequentsectionistodescribetheempiricalbasisofthere-
searchproject,abilingualcorpusoffootballlivecommentaries,andexplainthemethodofanal-
ysisaswellasthegeneralarchitectureoftheresource.
Inordertoconductquantitativeandqualitativeanalysestwosubcorpora,inEnglishandGerman
respectively,wereconstructed,drawingonwrittenlivecommentariesoffootballmatchesfound
ontheinternet.Thedecisiontomerelyoptforwrittenonlineresourcesasbasisofanalysisisfor
practicalreasonsonly.Itgoesofcoursewithoutsayingthatawrittenmediacorpusisfarmore
easilyproducedthancompilingacorpusofspokenlivebroadcastingwhichwouldinvolveatran-
scriptionofliveTVcommentary.Therefore,forreasonsofpracticalityandconveniencethedata
setthatwillbeanalyzedinthisstudyisrestrictedtopre-existingwrittensourcesonly,astran-
scribingliveTVcommentarieswouldgofarbeyondtheconstraintsofthisthesis.
5.1.1 Thechallengesofcorpusdesign
Unfortunately, Ihavenotbeenabletofindanalreadyexistingcorpusthat issuitableforthe
purposeofthisstudy.Therefore, Ihaveoptedforthepossibilityofdesigningmyowncorpus
51
fromresourcesavailableontheinternettocreatemyownlinguistictoolthatmeetstherequire-
ments for analyzingmetaphorical language use in football discourse.Most certainly, it goes
withoutsayingthatthecompilationofacorpusisatime-consumingmatter.
Thefirstfactorthatneedstobetakenintoconsiderationconcernsthesizeofthecorpus.One
wouldassumethatabiggercorpusmaybeconsideredtobebetterinthesensethatitismore
representativethanaone.However,thequestionofcorpussizeisacontroversialissue.Toput
itinReppen’s(2010:31-32)words:“Thequestionofcorpussizeisadifficultone.Thereisnota
specificnumberofwordsthatanswersthisquestion.Corpussizeiscertainlynotacaseofone
sizefitsall.”Itisverymuchdependentonthepurposeitissupposedtofulfill.Reppen(2010:32)
arguesthatcorpusresearchthatisundertakensoastocaptureallpossiblesensesofaparticular
word,asinbuildingadictionary,thenthecorpushastocomprisetensorhundredsofmillions
ofwords.However,dependingontheresearchquestionsunderlyingthestudy,itisalsopossible
togetalotofusefuldataoutofacomparativelysmallcorpus.Especiallywhenexploringhigh
frequencyitems.AtthispointIwouldliketoputforwardtheclaimthatmetaphorinfootball
discourseisindeedconsideredtobeahighfrequencyitemwithahighdensityofoccurrencesin
matchreportsandwrittenlivecommentaries.Therefore,thesizeofthecorpusfortheunderly-
ingresearchprojectwillbekepttoaminimum.
Ihavealsobeenconstrainedbymorepracticalconsiderations,namelybythefactthattheman-
ualannotationofacorpusisindeedatime-consumingundertaking,astheapplicationofabot-
tom-upapproach(i.e.theinductiveprocedure5),whichwillbeappliedinthequantitativeanal-
ysis of the data, requires a manual annotation of metaphors (Herrmann 2013: 74). Conse-
quently,thisrestrictscorpussizeforpracticalreasons,tomakemetaphoridentification,classi-
ficationandannotationamanageabletask.
5.1.2 Thematerial
Thematerialforthestudyconsistsofwrittenfootballlivecommentarieswhicharepublishedon
theweb.Suchalivecommentaryisalsoreferredtoasplay-by-play,orminute-by-minutecom-
mentary6andispublishedontheinternetwhilethematchoccurs.Toputitinanutshell,itisa
detailedandsequentialaccountofeveryphaseofthematch,as ithappens(Pérez-Sabater&
Peña-Martínez2008:243).Itcaneitherbeaspokendescriptionofthesportscompetitionon
radioortelevision,orawrittenaccountfoundinnewspapers,inonlineversionsofnewspapers
5Thisnotionwillbeoutlinedingreaterdetailinsection5.2.1ofthisthesis.6InGerman,suchaminute-by-minutelivecommentaryisreferredtoasLiveticker.
52
(e.g.BBCSport,GuardianSport)or specificwebsites for sportscoverage (e.g.www.sport.de,
www.sportsmole.co.uk).Thedatafortheresearchprojectunderlyingthisthesisonlyconsistsof
writtenminute-by-minutecommentariespublishedliveontheinternet,drawnspecificallyfrom
electronicportalsforsportscoverage.
IthasbeennotedbyBergh(2011:86)thatwithregardtothematerialitself,writtenminute-by-
minutelivecommentariesprovideaninterestingtexttypeforanalysiswhichexhibits itsown
characteristics.AccordingtoBergh(2011:86)thistexttypehasonlyrecentlydeveloped,only
madepossiblebynewcomputertechnologiesandanincreasingmediaindustry.Consequently,
Bergh(2011:86)conceivesofwrittenminute-by-minutematchreportsas:
• awrittengenre,• informalandspeech-based,• producedinrealtime,• semi-interactive,• publishedontheweb,• ahybridoforalcommentaryonradio/TVandwrittenreportsinnewspapers.
Forthepurposeofthisstudytwosubcorporaarecompiled:whileoneconsistsofGermanmi-
nute-by-minute(written)livecommentaries,theothersubcorpusiscomposedofEnglishwrit-
tenlivereportsofthesamesoccergamesastheonesinGerman.Specifically,thismeansthat
thetextsdescribethreedifferentmatchesinbothlanguages.Table1belowshowsthematches
coveredbytheinvestigation.IoptedforcommentariesinEnglishandGermanthatdescribethe
samesoccergamesforreasonsofcomparability.Thehomogeneityofthecorpusfacilitatesthe
comparisonof the findingsof the study.Both subcorporaconsistof threeminute-by-minute
analyses,EnglishandGermanrespectively,amountingtoatotalofsixtextsintheentirecorpus.
ThewordcountinTable1belowshowsthattheentirecorpuscomprisesatotalof12,538valid
unitsofanalysis, i.e.words.While6,306wordsmakeup theGermansubcorpus, theEnglish
subcorpusamountstoatotalof6,232words.
53
Teams Tournament Date Language Wordcount
BarcelonavsAthleticBilbao(3-0)
LaLiga February4,2017 English 2,175
BarcelonavsParisSaint-Ger-main(6-1)
ChampionsLeague
March8,2017 English 2,680
Arsenal vs Manchester City(2-2)
PremierLeague April2,2017 English 1,377
BarcelonavsAthleticBilbao(3-0)
LaLiga February4,2017 German 2,257
BarcelonavsParisSaint-Ger-main(6-1)
ChampionsLeague
March8,2017 German 2,685
ArsenalvsManchesterCity PremierLeague April2,2017 German 1,364Totalnumberofwords 12,538
Table1Minute-by-minutematchreportsinvestigatedinthestudy
5.2 Methodsofanalysis
Thetaskofthepresentsectionistoaddmetaphortotheprofileoffootballminute-by-minute
livecommentariesandexaminewhichplacemetaphoroccupiesinthisgenre.Theresearchpro-
jectunderlyingthisthesisisdividedintotwoparts,aquantitativeandaqualitativeone.While
thequantitativeanalysiswill inquirehowmetaphorisdistributedacrossthetwosubcorpora,
thequantitativeanalysisexamineswhichmetaphorsaretypicallyusedinfootballlivecommen-
taries.Inthefollowing,Iwillbrieflyoutlinethewaythetwotypesofanalysisarecarriedout,
andalso take intoaccount thekindsof researchquestionseachone intendedtoanswer.To
drawacomprehensivepictureofthemethodologicalapproachunderlyingthisstudy,Iwillfirst
describethedirectionofanalysisthatistakeninbothparts,thatiswhetheradeductiveorin-
ductivemethodisappliedinordertoidentifymetaphorsinfootballdiscourse.Secondly,Iwill
giveadetaileddescriptionofhowthemetaphoridentificationiscarriedoutinordertoobtain
mydata.Lastly,anoverviewwillbegivenonthedesignofthequalitativeandqualitativeanaly-
sis.
5.2.1 Directionofanalysis
Beforeturningtotheidentificationanddescriptionoftheindividualstepsthatarenecessaryto
findmetaphorsindiscourse,itisimportant,todecideuponthedirectionofanalysis,whichhas
alreadybeenreviewedinsection4.1ofthisthesis.Here,itwillbedeterminedwhichofthetwo
approachesunderlieswhichresearchquestion.
Oneimplicationthatemergesfromwhathasbeendiscussedinthetheorysectionondeductive
versusinductiveapproachestometaphoridentificationisthatitisamatteroftheanalyst’sgoal
whichmethodistobepreferred.Hence,thedirectionofthemetaphoridentificationmethod
54
largelydependsontheresearchquestionunderlyingthestudy.Withtheresearchquestionsin
mindthathavebeenformulatedinsection3.2,theoutlineinsection4.1hasthefollowingim-
plicationsforthelinguisticanalysis: intheresearchprojectunderlyingthisthesisamixedap-
proachisused.Ontheonehand,sincetheprevalenceoftheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLIS
WARinminute-by-minutelivecommentariesispostulatedinthisthesis,theadoptionofade-
ductiveapproachtofindinginstantiationsoflinguisticmetaphorsthatmakemanifesttheFOOT-
BALL ISWAR conceptualmetaphor is applied. Thus, the question that underlies the deductive
methodtofindingmetaphorinsoccerdiscourseisthefollowing:Towhatextentisfootballcon-
ceptualizedintermsofwarincurrentfootballcommentariesinEnglishandGerman?Specifi-
cally,thismeansthatthelinguisticdatawhichthecorpusoffersissiftedthroughinordertofind
systematic connectionsbetween the two conceptual domainsof football andwar.With this
question,IamseekingtotestwhethertheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISWARcanbeverified
inthegivencontextanddescribeitinaquantitativeandqualitativemanner,soastoprovide
evidenceforthedistributionofthephenomenonbetweenthetwosubcorpora.
Further,giventhecognitively-informednatureoftheframeworkunderlyingthisthesis,Iwilltry
toanswerthequestion,whichotherconceptualizationsareusedtodescribetheeventsonthe
soccer field.However, thisposesa considerablybigger challenge than just locating linguistic
manifestationsoftheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISWAR.Ithasalreadybeenestablishedin
thisthesisthattheidentificationofconceptualmappingsinCMTposesmethodologicalprob-
lems.Thisconcernsinparticulartherelationbetweenametaphoricallyusedlinguisticexpres-
sionandconceptualmetaphor.Inordertobeabletofindinstantiationsofothersourcedomains
thatdescribetheunderlyingconceptualstructureofalinguisticmetaphor,theunitsofanalysis
firstneedtobeidentified.Thisisdonebytheapplicationoftheinductiveapproach.Asalready
mentionedattheoutsetofthissection,specificandclearcriteriaareneededfordefiningand
identifyingmetaphorinlanguage,whichhavetobespecifiedopenlyinordertobeabletopro-
ducevalidevidence(Herrmann2013:74).Thedataarethereforecollectedbyapplicationofthe
MIP.AccordingtoHerrmann(2013:75)
MIPprovidesanoperationalwayof identifyingmetaphors inactualusage, inde-pendentlyofdomainofdiscourse.Oneof thisgreatadvantages is that it allowsresearcherstoremainagnostictowardspotentiallyproblematicassumptionsaboutunderlyingconceptualstructuresandquestionsabout languageprocessingwhilebeinglargelycompatiblewithconceptualmetaphortheory.
Thus, it is importanttorememberthatMIP isonlyconcernedwithfinding linguistic formsof
metaphor,butnotitsconceptualstructure.However,thisthesisfollowsanarrowerdefinition
ofmetaphor,onlycountingthoseinstancesthatunderlieaconceptualstructureandexhibita
55
targetandasourcedomain.Metaphoridentificationinthisthesisdoesthereforenotrestrict
itselftoMIP,butinvolvestheidentificationoftheunderlyingconceptualstructurethatmakes
manifestthelinguisticexpressions.Ifatargetandasourcedomaincanbeascribedtoagiven
linguisticmetaphor, it is categorizedas conceptualmetaphorand isusedasvaliddata.How
exactlythisisdonewillbeexplainedinthesubsequentsection.
5.2.2 Metaphoridentification
This section is setout toexplain ingreaterdetail how thedata for the subsequentanalyses
conductedintheresearchprojectisobtainedfromthecorpus.Toarriveatavaliddatasetthat
issuitableforfurtherinvestigation,severalstepsarenecessary.Inthefollowing,thosewillbe
outlinedandexplainedinmeticulousdetail.
Inoppositiontocommonpracticeincognitivelinguistics,inthefirststep,thelinguisticformsof
metaphor,butnotitsconceptualstructuresareidentified.Thisistheconsequenceofapplying
MIPforfindingmetaphoricallyusedexpressions.Itisimportanttonotethatbecauseconceptual
metaphorismademanifestinspeech,linguisticmetaphorgainsconsiderablesignificance.The
identificationoftheunderlyingcross-domainmappingsoftwodifferentconceptsisataskfora
laterstageinthisanalysis.
Inordertolimittheanalysistoamanageabletask,amodificationoftheMIPisnecessary.The
rationaleofthePragglejazGroup’sprocedureisthatitisappliedtoeverylexicalunitofagiven
text.For instance, instep3aof theMIP it issuggestedthat themeaning incontext foreach
lexicalunit inthetextshouldbeestablished.Likewise,step3binvolvesdeterminingwhether
eachlexicalunithasamorebasiccontemporarymeaninginothercontextsthantheoneinthe
givencontext.However,applyingthisproceduretoacorpusofslightlyover12,500wordswould
gofarbeyondthescopeofthisstudy.Thus,tominimizethetimefordatacollection,thegeneral
decisionhasbeenmadetoonlyapplytheMIPtothelexicalunitsofthetextthatareindirector
incongruousincontext.Cameron(2003:59)statesthat
[a]necessaryconditionforlinguisticmetaphoristhepresenceinthediscourseofafocustermorVehicle [equivalent tosourcedomain, i.e. theactual figurativeex-pression],awordorphrasethat isclearlyanomalousor incongruousagainstthesurroundingdiscourse.
This suggests thatwhen semantic transfer fromone senseof the linguisticunit to theother
seemspossiblebysomeformofcomparisonorsimilarity,theexpressioncanbemarkedasbeing
metaphorical.Afurtherindicatorformetaphoricalmeaningiswhentheindirectlyusedexpres-
sion can be integrated into another context which resolves the incongruity (Charteris-Black
2004:21;Steen2007b:17).Forexample,Messiisamachineatfirstseemsoddiftakenatface
56
valuebecauseclearlyMessiisahumanbeingandnotaninanimateobject.However,oncetypi-
calfeatureofamachine,likeworkingtirelesslyandefficientlyareconsideredandintegrated,
the incongruity is resolved. In the first step ofmetaphor identification Iwill rely on Steen’s
(2007b:17)basicideathat“metaphorisaformofindirectmeaningthatisbasedoncorrespond-
enceorsimilarity.”
Thishasthefollowingimplicationconcerningmetaphoridentificationinthisstudy:thebasicas
wellasthecontextualmeaningofalexicalunitareonlyestablishedforthosecaseswherean
indirector incongruoususeofawordcanbe identifiedataclose readingof the text.Those
instancesoflexicalunits,wherethecontextualmeaningcontrastswiththebasicmeaningand
canbeunderstoodbycomparisonwithit,arethenmarkedasmetaphorical.Soastodetermine
aword’smostbasicmeaning,IfollowthePragglejzGroup’sprocedure,whousedictionaryen-
triesasbasicmeaning.Asthebasicmeaningofawordthosedictionaryentriesareusedwhich
arethemostconcrete,human-orientedandspecific(Steen2007b:12).Inthisstudy,theMac-
millanonlinedictionaryisconsultedfordeterminingbasicmeaningsinEnglishandtheonline
versionoftheDudenisusedfortheGermantexts.Inordertocreateacoherentdatasetwitha
consistentstructure,thelinguisticmetaphorsarethenenteredintoanExcelspreadsheet.
ToshowwhatthefirststepofthemetaphoridentificationlookslikeinpracticeIwouldliketo
usethefollowingexample(8)takenfromaGermanlivecommentaryforillustration:
(8) Am30.SpieltagderPremierLeaguekommteszumKampfderSchwergewichtezwischen
demFCArsenalundManchesterCity.(MBM01)
TheapplicationoftheMIPrevealsthatthereare17validlexicalunitsofanalysisinthissentence.
FC Arsenal andManchester City are proper names for two renowned soccer clubs and are
treatedasonelexicalunitrespectively.Aclosereadingoftheexcerptrevealsthattwowords
are seen as potentially metaphorical as they are anomalous in this context: Kampf and
Schwergewichte.DeterminingthecontextualmeaningofthenounKampfshowsthatitrefersto
theupcomingsoccermatchbetweenFCArsenalandManchesterCity.However,theconsulta-
tionoftheDudenshowsthatthenounKampfhasamorebasicmeaningof“größeremilitärische
AuseinandersetzungfeindlicherTruppen”.Thetwosensesaredistinctbuttheycanberelated
bysimilarity:whentworivallingfootballclubsareplayingagainsteachothertheyarecompeting
inordertowin.Thiscanbecomparedwithamilitaryconflictwhereenemytroopsarefighting
againsteachotherinordertowin.Also,bothmeaningscanbedescribedashavingthesame
goal,thatistowin.Similarly,footballteamsarecomparedtoboxersfromthesameweightclas-
ses.Schwergewichteinthiscontextreferstothefactthatbothteamsthatareequallyskilledin
57
theirfootballingperformance.Meaningthatbothteamsaremadeupofextremelygoodand
highlyskilledfootballplayersandthereforehaveequalchancesofwinningorlosingthegame.
However, the basicmeaning designates “zweitschwerste Körpergewichtsklasse”. The idea is
takenfromsportssuchasboxingandwrestlinginwhichthecompetitorsareputintosocalled
weightclassestomatchcompetitorsagainstothersoftheirownsizeandweight.TheGerman
weightclassSchwergewichtreferstoheavyweightinEnglish.Again,thereisacontrastbetween
the physical (“zweitschwerste Körpergewichtsklasse”) and the abstract (two equally skilled
teams)meaningsofthewordswhichcanbeunderstoodbycomparison.
Thisanalysisdemonstrateswhichstepsarenecessarytogetvalidinstancesoflinguisticmeta-
phorsthatcanbeincludedinthedata.Example(8)showstheprocesshowthewordsKampf
andSchwergewichteweremarkedasmetaphoricalandthuswereaddedintothedatabase.
Whilethefirststepdealswithidentifyinglinguisticmetaphors,thesubsequentstepisconcerned
withdeterminingtheconceptualstructureofthetwodomainsandthecross-domainmapping
thatunderliestheconceptualmetaphor.IherewithagreewithSteen(2009:200),whostates
that“[o]ncelinguisticexpressionsofmetaphorhavebeenidentifiedindiscourse,theystillneed
toberelatedtothecorrespondingconceptualstructures.”Steen(2007b:16-19;2009:197-226)
hasthereforeemphasizedtheneedtogobeyondwhathasbeensuggestedbythePragglejaz
Groupinordertogetfromthelinguisticexpressionsofmetaphorindiscoursetothepresumed
underlyingconceptualstructures.ToputitinSteen’s(2007b:16)words:“[f]indingmetaphorin
discourseisnotjustamatterofidentifyingmetaphoricallyusedwordsbutalsoofidentifying
theirrelatedconceptualstructures.”Hence,Steen(2007b:16-19;2009:197-226)hascatered
for theneedsanddevelopeda five-step framework foraddressing this issue.Thesystematic
proceduretogetfromlinguisticmetaphortoconceptualmetaphorincludesthefollowingfive
steps:
1. Findthemetaphoricalfocus
2. Findthemetaphoricalproposition
3. Findthemetaphoricalcomparison
4. Findthemetaphoricalanalogy
5. Findthemetaphoricalmapping
Inthefollowing,thebasicmechanismsofthisfive-stepprocedureareillustratedwiththefol-
lowingexample(9),whichistakenfromtheEnglishsubcorpus:
(9) Thisisacollector'sitem-aright-footedshotfromMonreal.Theballfellinvitinglytohim
ontheedgeoftheareabuthefiredhighoverthecrossbar.(MBM04)
58
Theaimistodemonstratethemethodologicalapproachthatistakentogetfromthelinguistic
metaphorindiscoursetotheunderlyingcross-domainmappinginconceptualstructure.
Step1of the five-stepprocedure involves the identificationofmetaphor-relatedwords.This
identificationhappensonalinguisticlevel.Howthiscanbedonewasshownabovebymeansof
theapplicationoftheMIP.However,whatisimportanttoclarifyatthispoint,isthataccording
toSteen(2009:202)“metaphor-relatedwordsaredefinedasthosewordswhichindicatethe
sourcedomainofametaphor.”ThisimpliesthatbySteen’sdefinition,thelinguisticmetaphor
triggersthecontextofaspecificsituationorframewhichinturnisthesourcedomain.Thefocus,
inthiscase,isactuallyonephrase,“acollector’sitem”.
Step2oftheproceduremeritsspecialattentionherebecauseitmakesexplicitoneofthemain
tenets of CMT, namely thatmetaphor is not just amatter of language, but, evenmore im-
portantly,ofthought.Thisshouldbemadeclearbythetransformationofthelinguisticexpres-
sions intoconceptual structures in the formofa seriesofpropositions (Steen2009:208). In
moresimpleterms,thismeansthatthisstepinvolvesestablishingthepropositionoftheclause,
whichtakesplaceonaconceptuallevel.
Inexample(9)thegeneralpropositionoftheclausethatcanbeidentifiedisTheright-footed
shotisacollector’sitem.Fromthisthefollowingcanbederived:Themetaphoracollector’sitem
referstotheshotbythefootballplayerMonreal.Thepropositionalcontentofthefirstclause
thisisacollector’sitem isthatofashotbeingalikeapreciousobject.Hence,thefirstclause
introducesthedomainPRECIOUSOBJECTusingthelinguisticmetaphorcollector’sitemtoreferto
it.Thesecondclause,aright-footedshotfromMonreal,introducesthedomainEVENTINFOOTBALL,
thatis,ashot,bymeansofexophoricreference.7
AccordingtoSteen(2007b:18;2009:213)theaimofstep3istotransformthesingleproposition
withconceptsfromtwodistinctdomainsinanopencomparison.Therefore,astrictseparation
ofthetwodomainsisrequired,whichhasbeendoneinstep2.Inexample(9)thereisasimilarity
between the right-footedshot(Target) andacollector’s item(Sourse). Thesimilarityhas tobepro-
jectedfromthecollector’sitemontotheshot.Suchastatementofsimilaritycanonlybepossible
ifthereisacertaincorrespondencebetweenthetwo,thatis,theremustbeaninherentsimilar-
7AsanasideitmaybenotedatthispointthatduetothefactthataMBMlivecommentaryisaspecialtexttypethatisproducedasthefootballmatchoccurswiththepurposeofgivingadetailedandse-quentialdescriptionofthematchtotheintendedaudience,intextproductiontherelationshipofthistoaright-footedshotisthatofanexophoricreferenceasitreferstotheeventinthefootballgame.Thedeicticreferencehereispointingtoanextralinguisticeventinthegame.
59
itybetweenthetwo.Asmentionedabove,thetwoseparateconceptsthatareinvolvedinex-
ample(9)arePRECIOUSOBJECTandEVENTINFOOTBALL.Moreover,thecomparisonissaidtobeopen
“becausenotallconceptsinvolvedintheenvisagedalignmentandmappingbetweenthetwo
domainsareexpressedinthelanguageofthetext.”(2009:213).
Thetaskofstep4istheidentificationofanalogy(Steen2007b:18).AccordingtoSteen(2009:
215), thereare twocomplementaryanalyticalprocesses involved in this step.Forone thing,
“[f]indingtheappropriatevaluesforthesourcedomainmaybeseenasamatterofvehiclein-
terpretation”,foranotherthing“findingtheappropriatevaluesforthetargetdomainconcerns
tenorortopicinterpretation.”(Steen2009:215).Whilethelatterhastodowiththeanalysisof
theutteranceinthediscourseincontext,theformer,dependsontheanalyst’sknowledgeabout
theworld and is guided by general considerations ofmeaning. Hence, the analyst searches
throughhisorherconceptualrepresentationofsourceandtargetdomainandlooksforsome-
thingthatcanmakeananalogybetweenthosetwoconceptspossible.Thequestiontobean-
sweredinstep4isdependentonwhathasbeenoneinstep3:Sincewehaveproposedinstep
3thattheremustbeasimilaritybetweenacollector’sitemandtheright-footedshot(asevi-
dencedbythelinguisticexpressionidentifiedinstepone),whatthenissimilarbetweenthem?
Whatmakesananalogypossible?Steen(2007b:18)writesthatthis“stepalsohappenstobe
theleastconstrainedofallthesteps”.Hence,theanalystrummagesthroughhisorherstoreof
knowledgeonthesourcedomainandtriestoseewhatmightfitthetargetdomain.Since,inthis
case,thesource“acollector’sitem”ismarkedasbeingnon-identifiable,so‘anycollector’sitem’,
theassumptionisthatitmustbeafeaturethatisparticularlysalientforthisgroupofitems(as
isindeedthecaseinmostmetaphors).Alikelysourcedomainvaluemightbe‘special’or‘worth
keeping’.TheanalogythenisThisright-footedshotislikeacollector’sitem,asbotharespecial
andworthkeeping.
Thenextandfinalstepofthefive-stepprocedure isconcernedwiththe identificationofthe
underlyingcross-domainmappingoftheconceptualmetaphor.ToputitinSteen’s(2009:217)
ownwords:“[t]hefunctionofstep5istospelloutthealignedandcorrespondingconceptswhich
areimpliedbytheanalogicalstructureproducedbystep4.”Steen(2007b:19)notesthat“[s]tep
5canalsoaddfurthercorrespondenceswhichhaveremainedinthebackgroundoftheanalogy
until now.” Thismeans that other, possibly less salient elements ofwhat one knows of the
sourcedomaincannowbeadded.“Implicitelements”,asSteen(2007b:19)callsthem,canalso
beprojected,forinstancethatcollector’sitemsaresomethingthatpeopletakeoutandlookat,
60
thatcollector’smeetandtradeinthemcanalsobecomepartoftheanalogy.Inthefuture,foot-
ballfanswillrevisitthisspecialmoment,talkaboutthiseventandtradestoriesofhavingseen
it.
Withstep5,thedescriptionofthewholeprocessthatunderliestheidentificationofthecon-
ceptualstructureofacross-domainmappingwhichisrealizedbyametaphorindiscoursehas
beenbroughttoaconclusion.Thisdelineationofthefive-stepproceduretriestoelucidatethe
variousaspectsthatareinvolvedwhenwetalkaboutconceptualmetaphorssuchasFOOTBALLIS
WAR,TIMEISACONTAINER,THELOSINGTEAMISBEHIND,orAFOOTBALLMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE.
Inthecaseofexample(9)theconceptualmetaphorEVENTSINFOOTBALLAREOBJECTScanbeidenti-
fied.
Eventhoughthefive-stepmethodsuggestedbySteen(1999;2007b;2009)offersresearchersa
reliabletoolfordeterminingconceptualmetaphor,thetaskofidentifyingconceptualmetaphors
aspartofthisstudyisnonethelessachallengingone.ThisisduetothefactthatIwishtocapture
allmetaphorsaspartofthesymbolicstructureofthetext.Inordertoaccomplishthisgoalin
thebestwaypossible, the twosubcorporaareanalyzedseveral times,which involvesavery
criticalandclosereadingofthetexts.
Inthefollowing,Iwouldliketogiveabriefoverviewofhowthedatasetisconstructedandset
upandwhatparametersofanalysisitinvolves.Also,labelsandcategoriesareprovidedtomake
the individual stepsof theanalysisas comprehensibleand transparentaspossible.First, the
wholecorpusismanuallyannotatedforinstancesoflinguisticmetaphors,bytheapplicationof
theMIPonrelevantexpressions.Thismanualselectionofallthoselinguisticexpressionsthat
qualifyaslinguisticmetaphors,occupiedmostofthetimedevotedtotheresearchprocess.Sec-
ondly,theidentifiedlinguisticexpressions(i.e.usuallythewholeutterance)aswellasthecor-
respondingfocusterm(i.e.thelexicalunitthatismetaphoricallyusedwithinanutterance)are
manuallyextractedfromthecorpusandaddedtothedatabase.Forthispurpose,thespread-
sheetExcel,whichallowsfortheorganization,analysisandstorageofdataintabularform,is
used.While,theutterancecontainingthelinguisticmetaphorislabeledasLinguisticexpression
inthedataset,themetaphoricallyusedexpressionthatisrelevantfortheanalysisislabeledas
Focus.Then,thefive-stepmethodisappliedinordertodeterminetheunderlyingsourceand
thetargetdomainsaswellasbasisoftheconceptualstructureofthecross-domainmapping
whichisrealizedbythelinguisticmetaphor.Thoseinstancesthatwerethenaddedtothedata
areassignedthefollowinglabels:sourcedomain,targetdomain,conceptualmetaphor,andtype
ofmetaphor.Thisstepisnecessarysoastoensureapositivemetaphoricity.If,however,this
61
stepfailstodetermineapositivemetaphoricity,meaningthatnounderlyingcross-domainmap-
pingcanbedetermined,thenitdoesnotqualifyasconceptualmetaphorinmyunderstanding
ofthetermandisexcludedfromthedata.
Forexample,inthefirstannotationofthecorpusthatiscarriedout,alsoinstancesofparspro
totoareincluded.InGerman,acommonlyusedparsprototoisdasLeder,whichreferstothe
ball.Here,partoftheobject,thatistheleathertheballismadeoutof,representsitsentirety
andisreferredtoassuchincontext.Thisisillustratedinexamples(10a-c):
(10) a. StoneskommtaussechsMeternzumKopfballundsetztdasLederzweiMeterlinksvorbei(MBM01)
b. dieKatalanenlassendasLederindeneigenenReihenkreisen(MBM02)
c. AuszehnMeternwuchteterdasLederknappamlinkenPfostenvorbei(MBM02)
Therefore,atotalofteninstantiationsofLederreferringtotheballareremovedfromtheda-
taset.
Further,inordertokeepthecorpuslinguisticanalysisandtheretrievaloftherelevantdata,as
wellasthepresentationanddiscussionoftheresultsamanageabletask,thegeneraldecision
hasbeenmade toalsoexcludemetonymy from thedata. Even though, thephenomenonof
metonymy,justasmetaphor,canbeanalyzedonaconceptuallevelintermsofacross-domain
mappingoftheconceptualstructure(cf.Lakoff&Johnson2003;Stefanowitsch2006).Toex-
cludethenotionofmetonymyfromthedata,is,however,apurelypracticaldecision,asIbe-
lieve,includingit,wouldundulystretchthescopeofthisthesis.Therefore,instancesasshown
in(11a-d)areremovedfromthedata,eventhoughtheywereincludedafterthefirstannotation
ofthecorpus.
(11) a. Im Hinspiel überraschte Barcelona mit einer erstaunlich schwachen Leistung(MBM03)
b. Paris tat sich lange schwer, schonte allerdings aucheinige Stars für dasRückspiel(MBM03)
c. but he is now laughing and joking with the Barcelona bench so all seems well(MBM05)
d. Barcelonahavescoredfourormoregoals(MBM06)
Insummary,asmallnumberofdifferentstructureshavetobeexcludedfromthedata.Forone
thing,becausetheiranalysisisoutsidethescopeofthisinvestigation(i.e.instancesofmetonymy
andparsprototo),or,foranotherthing,theanalysisintermsoftheunderlyingcross-domain
mappingdoesnotyieldanyresults,eventhoughatfirstglanceaconceptualmetaphorispre-
supposed.Moreover,itisimportanttonoteatthispointthatthemetaphorsidentifiedinthis
researchprojectareallspecificallyrelatedtofootball.Therearenometaphorsincludedinthe
62
datathatarecommonlyusedineverydayspeechorwriting,unlessofcourse,theyarerelated
tothematchthatisreportedon.Finally,thevaliddatathathasbeenextractedfromthecorpus
thatnowconstitutesthebasisfortheanalysisexhibitsinstancesoflinguisticexpressionsaswell
asthecorrespondingconceptualmetaphorsthattheymakemanifest.
5.2.3 Thecategorizationofconceptualmetaphors
Thefinaldecisionthathastobemadepriortheanalysisitselfishowtheconceptualmetaphors
areclassifiedaccordingthecognitivefunctionsthattheyperform.Forthispurpose,threegen-
eralkindsofconceptualmetaphorhavebeendistinguishedanddescribedinthetheoreticalpart:
structural, ontological, andorientational. This sectionexemplifieshow the conceptualmeta-
phorsinthedataarecategorizedbygivingexamplesofeachofthethreetypes.
Structuralmetaphorsare,accordingtoLakoffandJohnson(2003:61),themostsalienttypeof
metaphor.Thisclaimcanbesubstantiatedbyasearchquerytoextractallstructuralmetaphors
fromthetwosubcorpora.Theresultsofthequeryshowthatalsoinmydatastructuralmetaphor
exhibitlargestnumberofconceptualmetaphor.
Structuralmetaphorsrequireustotransferonebasicdomainofexperiencetoanotherbasic
domain.ThecognitivefunctionofitistounderstandtargetAbymeansofthestructureofsource
B.OneExamplethatisextractedfromcorpusforthiskindofmetaphoristhefollowing:
(12) eskommtzumKampfderSchwergewichte(MBM01)
In(12)thestructuralmetaphorAFOOTBALLMATCHISABATTLE,manifestedinthelinguisticmetaphor
eskommtzumKampfisexamined.Here,wereframethefootballmatchbetweentwoteamsin
termsofafightorbattlebetweenagroupofpeople.Afootballmatchevolveswhenourexpe-
riencewithbattleisimposedontheexperienceofafootballmatch.Ourexperienceofthephys-
icalworld andour knowledge about it allowsus to structure the domain FOOTBALLMATCHby
meansofthedomainBATTLEbecauseweconceiveoffootballmatchesthatway.Thismeansthat
becauseweknowthestructureofabattle,thatisthecourseofactionitentails,itallowsusto
imposethecharacteristicsofabattle(enemiesfacingeachotherinaphysicalconflictorfight;
winningorlosing)ontotheelementsofafootballmatch(twoteamsfacingeachotherasoppo-
nents;winningorlosing).Eventhoughthefootballplayersareofcoursenotengagedinanactual
physical fight,which is according to theMacmillanonlinedictionary itsmostbasicmeaning,
manyoftheeventsonthefootballpitchreflectthestructuredconceptofBATTLE.Thus,ourun-
derstandingofafootballmatchisorderedintermsoftheAFOOTBALLMATCHISABATTLEconceptual
metaphorwhenwehearutteranceslikethefollowing(13a-c):
63
(13) a. bothsidesbattleforpossession(MBM05)
b. Itcontinuestobeanintriguingbattle(MBM04)
c. afterwinningabattlewithadefenderbythepenaltyspot(MBM04)
Similarly,theconceptualizationoffootballintermsofabattleisshowninexample(13b),where
thewhole footballmatch is conceptualized in termsofbattle.However,examples (13a)and
(13c)exhibitaslightlydifferentmappingoftheconceptofbattle.In(13c)itisnottransferred
ontothewholefootballmatchasin(10)and(11b),ratheritisusedtoconceptualizeaoneon
onesituation,whereonlytwoplayersare involved,andnotthewholeteam.However,what
holdstruefor(11)canalsobeascribedto(13b).Thestructureofaoneononesituation,which
involvesdirectindividualcompetitionagainstanopposingplayer,canbecomparedtothestruc-
tureofafootballmatch:theyfollowthesamegoal,thatis,possessionoftheballandscoringa
goal.However,thedecisionhasbeenmadetoalsotreatinstancessuchas(13c)astheconcep-
tualmetaphorAFOOTBALLMATCHISABATTLE.(13a)alsodiffersintermsofwhichpartofthenotion
offootballtheconceptofBATTLEisascribedto.Inexamples(11)and(13b)thefootballmatchis
conceptualizedbytheconceptofbattle.Example(13c)conceptualizestheencounterbetween
twoplayersinaoneononesituationasabattle,andin(13a)thedomainBATTLEistransferred
totheencounterbetweentwoteams.Therefore,theconceptualmetaphorAFOOTBALLMATCHIS
ABATTLEistreatedinawaythat itcanbeextendedtodifferent levels.However,theissueon
whatlevelthistransferoffeaturesofdomainAontofootballcanhappen,willbeshowninthe
discussionofthequalitativeanalysis.
ThesecondcategoryintowhichLakoffandJohnson(2003:25)subdividetheencompassingcat-
egoryofconceptualmetaphorareontologicalmetaphors.Thetaskofontologicalmetaphorsis
toconceptualizeexperiencesintermsofphysicalobjects,substances,andcontainersbutwith-
outspecifyingwhatthesephysicalobjects,substancesandcontainersare(Kövecses2010:38).
Thismeansthat,whenitcomestothecategorizationofintangible,vague,orabstractconcepts,
suchasfeelings,experiences,activities,andideas,theyfallintothecategoryofontologicalmet-
aphors.Theclassificationofmetaphorsintothiscategoryhasproventobearemarkablydifficult
task.Thisisduetothefactthattheyareparticularlyabstractnature.Thedifferencebetween
theconcreteandabstractcharacteristicofastatementisnotalwayseasytolocate(Nordin2008:
115).Also,expressionsexhibitinganexperience, feelings,or ideas,arenotalwaysnoticedas
beingmetaphorical.Thereasonforthis,accordingtoLakoffandJohnson(2003:27),isthatthey
serveaverylimitedrangeofpurposes.Ascribingacontainer,substance,orphysicalobjecttoan
undelineatedconcept,allowsustorefertothem,toquantifythem,oridentifyaspects.Thislist
ofpurposesbeingbynomeansexhaustiveofcourse.
64
Inordertofulfillthetaskofascribingcategoriestometaphorsinanorderlyandsystematicfash-
ion,first,therelevantliteratureonmetaphorresearchinfootballdiscourseisconsulted,soas
togetabasicideawhichinstancesofontologicalmetaphorshavebeenidentifiedbymetaphor
scholarswithreferencetofootball.Atotaloffourconceptualmetaphorsofthiscategorycanbe
foundintwodifferentarticles:Gunell(2009:10)identifiesthefollowingthree:FOOTBALLISASUB-
STANCEwith“footballflowedbeautifully”and“bringEuropeanfootballback”aslinguisticmani-
festationsofit.Here,theactivityoffootballisconceptualizedintermsofasubstance.Thisgoes
inlinewithLakoffandJohnson’s(2003:30)claimthatactivitiesareconceptualizedmetaphori-
callyassubstances.ThesecondontologicalmetaphoridentifiedbyGunell(2009:10)FOOTBALLIS
ANENTITYisshownin“footballjustisnotfair”,“footballatitsbest”and“theimprobablenature
ofthefootball”.Here,theabstract,culture-specificnotionoffootballismadeconcretethrough
metaphors,thatis,footballistreatedasanentity.ThethirdmetaphorisVICTORYISASUBSTANCE
manifestedin“boltthebackdoorandsafeguardvictory”.Gunell(2009:10)notesthatbyview-
ingvictoryasasubstancetheconceptVICTORYcanbewrappedupandsealed.However,here,I
disagreewithGunell in so faras inmyview the conceptualizationof something that canbe
wrappedupandsealedismorelikely intermsofanobject,ratherthanasubstance. Iwould
thereforesuggesttheontologicalmetaphorVICTORYISANOBJECTinstead.Moreover,researchhas
beendone in thisareabyNordin (2008:117-119),who found the following instancesof the
metaphor IDEASAREOBJECTS/SUBSTANCES inhisdata:“wholooksforalternatives inthemiddle”,
“BruchteilevonSekunden”and“Bayernlosessomewidth”.IntheseinstantiationsofIDEASARE
OBJECTSanentitystatusisprojecteduponamentalphenomenon.(Lakoff&Johnson2003:214)
Thismeansthatyoucanonlylookforsomethingthatisanobject(“wholooksforalternativesin
themiddle”);similarly,youcanonlyloseobjects(“Bayernlosessomewidth”),andonlyanobject
canbreakintopieces(“BruchteilevonSekunden”),meaningthatifthetimeunitsecondsisnot
conceptualizedintermsofanobject,then,itcouldnotfallapartintopieces.
Withtheseexamplesofontologicalmetaphorsinmind,anotherdetailedcorpusanalysisisun-
dertaken.Thistime,specialattentionisgiventothelocalizationofontologicalmetaphors.This
analysisindeedyieldsmoreresults.Forinstance,theconceptualmetaphorunderlyingthelin-
guisticmetaphorinexample(9)“Thisisacollector’sitem”givenabove,fallsunderthecategory
ofontologicalmetaphors.Inthisexample,weconceiveofaneventinfootball,inthisparticular
casetheeventreferredtoisashot,asapreciousobject.Theconceptualmetaphorthatcanbe
derivedhereisEVENTSINFOOTBALLAREOBJECTS.Preciousnessisascribedtotheevent(ashot)and
theaudiencegainsagencyasthesituationisconceptualizedasanobjectthatcanbetakenhome
65
andbestoredtogetherwithothermemorabilia.Hence,theviewthatEVENTSINFOOTBALLAREOB-
JECTSisaprojectionofentitystatus(object)upontheevent(shot)viaanontologicalmetaphor.
Anotherexampleforanontologicalmetaphorfoundinthecorpusthatmeritsspecialattention
hereisshowninexample(14):
(14) DasSpielnimmtsichgeradeeinekleineAuszeit(MBM01)
Theconceptualmetaphorgivenin(14)isANEVENTISAHUMAN,consistingofthetargetdomain
FOOTBALL, that is theeventassuch, towhichthesourcedomainHUMANismappedonto.This
examplegainsspecialattentionherebecauseinthiscasesomethingnonhumanisseenashu-
man.AccordingtoLakoffandJohnson(2003:33)andKövecses(2010:39)metaphors,wherea
physicalobjectisconceptualizedintermsofaperson,isoneofthemostobviousontological
metaphorsandarereferredtoaspersonification.Meaningthatpersonificationisconceivedof
asaformofontologicalmetaphor(Kövecses2010:39).In(14)thesemanticfeature[+HUMAN]
isaddedtothefootballevent(“dasSpiel”),sinceonlypeoplecantaketimeout(“eineAuszeit
nehmen”).
Similarly,theconceptualmetaphorAMINUTEISALIVINGBEINGinexample(15)isaprojectionof
humancharacteristicsuponthetimeunitminutes.Here,thegerundopeningmodifiesthetime
unitminutesandencodesaverbalactionthatcanonlybeperformedbya[+ANIMATE]entity
andisthuscountedasaninstanceofpersonification.
(15) WehavenotseenanawfullotfromPSGintheopening17minutesofthismatch(MBM06)
Moreover,example(15)alsomeritsspecialattentionherebecauseitcannotonlybeassigned
tothecategoryofontologicalmetaphors,butcanalsobeclassifiedintothethirdtypeofcon-
ceptualmetaphorswhichstillremainstobediscussed,namelyorientationalmetaphors.
Asalreadyoutlinedinthetheorysection,orientationalmetaphorsorganizeconceptsbyassign-
ingthemaspatialorientation.Theyallowustostructureabstractconceptswithhumanspatial
conceptswhichemergefromoureverydayinteractionwiththephysicalenvironmentandrely
onoureverydaybodilyfunctioning.SuchspatialorientationsincludeUP-DOWN,FRONT-BACK,IN-
OUT,NEAT-FAR,etc.Inexample(15)theconceptoftimeisconceivedofasacontainer.Thus,the
sourcedomainCONTAINERisusedtodelineatethetargetdomainTIME.Fromthistheconceptual
metaphorTIMEISACONTAINERcanbederived.ItisobviousthattheTIMEISACONTAINERconceptual
metaphorisnotspecificallyfootballrelated.Nevertheless,thenotionoftimemeritsspecialat-
tentionherebecauseitplaysanessentialroleinfootballassuch(Brandt2015:45-46).Forin-
stance,Law07oftheofficialFIFAfootballrulesissolelydedicatedtothedurationofthematch
66
(de.fifa.com2016:29;fifa.com2016/17:61-62).Further,Levin(2008)hasobservedthesignifi-
canceoftimeinfootball.Inhisstudyonhigh-frequencyphrasesinfootballreportinghe(2008:
152)notesthat“phrasesrelatedtofootballtimewerefoundtobemostlymetaphoricinnature”.
Inexample(15)“intheopening17minutes”theprepositioningivesspatialorientationtothe
conceptofTIMEbyconceptualizingitasacontainer.Theeventshappeningduringaspecificpe-
riod of time are correlated with bounded time spans, whichmakes them CONTAINER OBJECTS
(Lakoff&Johnson2003:59),whichforexample,canbeentered(16a),conceivedofashaving
aninside(16b),orcanbeseenassomethingwecanstepinto(16c):
(16) a. weenterthefinal30minuteshere(MBM05)
b. Barcelonaleadonthenightinsidethreeminutes(MBM06)
c. Weareintothesecondoffiveadditionalminuteshere(MBM06)
OtherexamplesoforientationalmetaphorsthatareextractedfromthecorpusareLOWQUALITY
ISDOWN(17a-b).Inthesecases,lossofqualityinfootballingperformanceisconceptualizedas
droppingdeeperandgoingdown.
(17) a. Hecan'tbehappywiththewayinwhichhissidehavedroppeddeeperandarene-glectingtheirusualpassinggame.(MBM04)
b. Thequalityofthegamehasgonedownanotch.(MBM04)
Further,anotherorientationalmetaphorfoundinthedata,istheconceptualizationofthelosing
teamasbeingbehind(18a)ordown(18b):
(18) a. THELOSINGTEAMISBEHIND:Thevisitorsareveryunfortunatetobebehindatthisstage(MBM05)
b. THELOSINGTEAMISDOWN:PSGhavemanagedtokeepthescoredownto1-0(MBM06)
Thisisinlinewiththeclaimthatpositive-negativeevaluationisusuallyconceptualizedinterms
ofthespatialorientationup-down(Kövecses2010:40),meaningthattheconceptUPisprojected
uponpositiveemotionsandexperiences,whereasDOWNorBEHINDaremappedontonegative
emotionsandexperiences.
5.2.4 Quantitativeanalysis
Beforebeingabletodescribeandanalyzeinstancesofmetaphoricallanguageuseinsoccercom-
mentariesinaqualitativemanner,thefirsttaskistoquantifytheamountofmetaphoricallan-
guageunits.Thequantitativeanalysisdoneaspartofthisstudyessentiallymeasuresandcom-
parestherelativefrequencyofdifferencesinmetaphoruseinEnglishandGermanwrittenlive
commentaries.Therefore,thedistributionofmetaphoracrossGermanandEnglishsoccermi-
nute-by-minutereportsareexamined.
67
Themaingoalofthequantitativeanalysisistodeterminewhetherwrittenlivecommentariesin
EnglishorGermanexhibitthehigherfrequencyofmetaphoricallanguageuse.Thequantitative
analysisisthusmotivatedbythegeneralquestionHowismetaphordistributedacrossthetwo
subcorpora?Withinthisgeneralresearchinterestfurther,moreconcretequestionscanbede-
fined.Therefore,thequantitativeanalysisisguidedbythefollowingresearchquestion:Towhat
extentisfootballconceptualizedintermsofwarincurrentfootballcommentariesinEnglishand
German?FindingsontheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorwillhencebeinterpretedrelative
toothersourcedomainsthatarefoundinminute-by-minuteanalysesinbothlanguages.
Withtheseresearchquestionsinmind,thesearchfordatarequirestwomajorsteps:first,the
dataissearchedforinstantiationsoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor.Inordertogain
insightintohowmanyinstancesof linguisticmetaphorsmakemanifesttheconceptualmeta-
phorFOOTBALLISWAR,atokenfrequencyanalysisofallthemetaphoricalexpressionsrelatingto
thesourcedomainWARisundertaken.Sincetheunderlyingresearchquestionseekstotestin
whichlanguagethewarmetaphorismoresalient,thisanalysisiscarriedoutthreetimes,first,
ontheentirecorpus,andthenonthetwosubcorporaindividually.Inasecondstep,acertain
searchqueryisusedtoextractallothersourcedomainsthatoccurinthedata.Forthispurpose,
thefiltermechanismprovidedbyExcelisusedtoextractallconceptualmetaphorsaswellas
theircorrespondinglinguisticmetaphors.Theresultsofthosesearchqueriesarethenentered
intoaseparatespreadsheetinExceltofacilitatethecountingprocessaswellastoobtainagood
overviewofthedata.
Finally,itisimportanttomentionthatthecorpusistoosmalltomakereliableinferencesabout
thedistributionofmetaphorsbeyondthesampleanalyzedinthestudy.Allconclusionsonthe
basisofthequantitativeanalysishere,arepurelydescriptiveinnature.Thismeansthatdescrip-
tivestatistics8isusedtodescribethebasicfeaturesofthedatainthestudybyprovidingsimple
summariesaboutthesampleandabouttheobservationsthataremade.Moreover,thefindings
willbepresentedgraphicallyusingtablesandfigures.
5.2.5 Qualitativeanalysis
While thequantitativepartof the researchaimsatdescribing thedata inadescriptiveway,
showingmain differences between the two subcorpora using numbers and frequencies, the
qualitativeanalysisisguidedbyadifferentaim.Thetaskofthequantitativeanalysisistofind
8Itisimportanttodistinguishdescriptivestatisticsfrominferentialstatistics,whichaimsatreachingconclusionsthatextendbeyondtheimmediatedataalone.Duetothesmallcorpussizeunderlyingthisstudy,noinferencesfromthesampledatatothepopulationcanbedrawn.
68
answerstothefollowinggeneralresearchquestion:WhatmetaphortypesareusedinEnglish
andGermanfootballcommentaries?
Inordertoachievethisaim,atokenfrequencyanalysisoflinguisticexpressionsbelongingtoa
particularconceptualmetaphorisundertaken.Thismethodissetouttomeasuremetaphorical
salience.Withthisprocedure,thetenmostfrequentlyusedconceptualmetaphorsshallbeiden-
tified.What followsnext is that theconceptualmetaphors that leadtherank inquantitative
termswillbepresentedingreaterdetail.Thisisdonebyprovidingexamplesthatareextracted
fromthecorpus.Further,thenumberofoccurrencesoflinguisticmetaphorsmanifestingapar-
ticularconceptualmappingthatarefoundintheentirecorpusaswellasinthetwosubcorpora
isprovided.ThisshalldeterminewhetherEnglishandGermanexhibitsimilaritiesordifferences
withregardstotheuseofaparticularsourcedomain.Thisanalysisshedslightonthesalience
oftheconceptualmetaphorinquestioninbothlanguagesandshallprovideinformationabout
whatdiscoursesshapethenotionoffootball.
5.2.6 Problemsandlimitations
Beforeturningtothepresentationofresults,therearesomeaspectsregardingproblemsand
limitationsthatIwouldliketoaddresshere.Thelimitationsthatthestudyissubjectedtofollow,
ontheonehand,directlyfromthefactthatthecorpushasbeencompiledbymyselfandthat
thedataisextractedmanuallyfromthecorpus,andontheotherhand,otherlimitationspertain
toproblemsthatIencounteredintheresearchprocess.
Theconstraintthatisinherenttothecorpusdesignrelatestothesizeofthecorpusandisprob-
ablytheonethatcanbeassumedtohavethelargesteffectonthequantitativeanalysisofthe
study.Themostfar-reachingconsequenceofcompilingmyowncorpusaswellasmanuallyan-
notatingthecorpusisthatitdrasticallylimitsthepotentialsizeofthecorpusmainlyforpractical
reasons.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatallthree,thecompilationofthecorpus,themanualanno-
tation,aswellasthemanualextractionoflinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconceptualmap-
pingsare indeedan immensely timeconsumingmatter.As faras corpus compilation is con-
cerned,notonlydecidingwhichtexttypestoincludeinthecorpus,butalsofindingtextsinboth
languagesthatareofapproximatelythesamelengthandreportonthesamefootballgames,
wereadifficultandtimeconsumingtasks.
Furthermore, there is another limitation that pertains to corpus size. As alreadymentioned
above,theconclusionsthataredrawnfromthequantitativeanalysisonlyallowmetodescribe
themostsalientfeaturesofthedatawithoutmakinggeneralizationsaboutwhichconceptsare
usedtodescribetheeventsonthefootballfieldduringamatch.However,themainreasonfor
69
decidingtocompilemyowncorpusforthestudywasafairlysimpleone:Thereexist,asofyet,
noannotatedcorporaoffootballcommentaries,ormatchreportsthatwouldhavesuitedmy
purposes.
Acomplexissuethatemergesduringtheprocessofannotatingthecorpusandextractingmet-
aphorsfromit(albeitnotunexpectedly),concernsthefactthattheidentificationandanalysis
oflinguisticandconceptualmetaphorshasastrongintuitivebasis(Kövecses2011:24).Itisa
problematicanddifficulttaskinasmuchastheoutcomeishighlyaffectedbydecisionstakenby
theanalyst.Stefanowitschputsitaptly:
Invirtuallyallstudiesofmetaphor,whethercorpus-basedornot,metaphorsareidentified and categorized based onmore-or-less explicit commonsensical intui-tionsofthepartoftheresearcher[…].Thisstrategymaybeunproblematicforveryclear-cut-cases,butanexhaustiveannotation[…]willconfronttheresearcherwithmanycasesthatarenotclearcut.
However, by applying two empirically tested explicit procedures, theMIP and the five-step
methodbySteen,measureshavebeentakentocounteractthismethodologicalissueinthebest
possibleway.Nevertheless, it turnsout that theanalyst’scommonsensical intuitiononwhat
countsasametaphorandwhatdoesnotcannotbecompletelydisregarded.Thefactthatre-
searchershavetorelyonintuitionwhenidentifyinglinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconcep-
tualmappingsismainlyduetoonesimplereason,namely,“thatconceptualmappingsarenot
linkedtoparticularlinguisticforms”(Stefanowitsch2006:1-2).
Anotherproblemthatdirectlystandsinconnectionwiththepreviousoneisthefactthatitis
mostlikelythatnotallrelevantdataisretrievedfromthecorpus,meaningthatitmaypotentially
bethecasethatnotallconceptualmetaphorshavebeenidentifiedassuch.Apossiblesolution
totheproblemsthatconcerntheroleofsubjectivityandthatofexhaustiveness,istotestthe
identificationprocedureofmetaphorswith intra-raterand inter-rater reliabilitymeasures. In
theformer,theprocedureiscarriedoutagainbytheanalysthimorherself,thelatteriscon-
cernedwithanotherpersoncarryingouttheprocedure.Intra-raterreliabilitytestsprovidein-
formationabouthowmuch consensus there is among raterswhen theyhaveanalyzed their
materialsindependentlyofeachother.Inthiscaseinter-raterreliabilitycouldensurethatpo-
tentiallyallmetaphorsareidentifiedandextractedfromthecorpus.However,thescopeofthis
thesisonlyallowstestingtheprocedurewithintra-raterreliabilitymeasures,ratherthanwith
both.
AnotherissueIencounteredintheresearchprocesspertainstothefactthatamixedapproach
tometaphoridentification,thatisbottom-upandtop-down,isappliedintheunderlyingstudy.
ThepostulationoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor,whichisidentifiedbymeansofthe
70
top-downprocedure,hasfar-reachingimplicationsforthecomplexityandextentoftheestab-
lishedmapping.Thatistosay,atop-downapproachismostlyconcernedwithidentifyingmore
general and global conceptual metaphors as for example FOOTBALL IS WAR it is. To put it in
Kövecses’s(2011:29)ownwords:“Insuchanapproach,whatisinthecenterofattentionis[…]
theconceptualmetaphoritselfasahigher-levelcognitivestructure.”However,whenitcomes
to identifyingmetaphorsbymeansofthebottom-upapproach,themappingsexhibitamore
complexandfine-grainedstructure.AccordingtoKövecses(2011:28)thebottom-upapproach
allowstheresearchertoanalyzethemetaphoricalexpressionsfortheirdetailedsemantic,struc-
turalandpragmaticbehaviorinconcretecontextsofuse.Forexample,themetaphoricalexpres-
sionverbucheninaGermanfootballcontextmeanstoachievesuccessinagame,or,colloquially,
“tochalksomethingup”(MM,entrychalksomethingup,accessed1June2017).Forinstance,
theconceptualmetaphorthatismademanifestbythelinguisticexpressionverbucheninGer-
manfootballcommentaryisGOALSAREMONEYINANACCOUNT.Here,itisnoteasytoidentifyaglobal
andencompassingconceptualmetaphorthatiseasilyretrievableandnaturallyaccountsforthis
meaning (Kövecses2011:29).Kövecses (2011:30)pointsout that“wecannot […]claimthat
thereisaglobalconceptualmetaphorbehind,orunderlying,eachandeverymetaphoricalex-
pression.”
Hence,formethodologicalreasons,noglobalconceptualmetaphorswereestablishedforthose
metaphorsthatwere identifiedbyapplicationofthebottom-upapproach(i.e.allconceptual
metaphorsexceptFOOTBALLISWAR),asKövecses(2011:30)claimsthat“conceptualmetaphor
theoryisnotexhaustedbysettingupglobalconceptualmetaphors”.Kövecses(2011:30)further
suggeststhatwhenapplyingatop-downapproach“[w]hatweneedtodoinadditionistosee
whichelementsofthesourcecorrespondtowhichelementsofthetargetdomain”,henceex-
aminingtheinternalstructureofthesemetaphors(i.e.mappings,entailments,etc.).Mydecision
nottoestablishmorecomplexandfine-grainedmappingsincaseoftheFOOTBALLISWARmeta-
phor(asforexampleFOOTBALLPLAYERSARESOLDIERS),ismotivatedbythecurrentliteraturethat
examinesmetaphorsinfootballacontext,astheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorispostu-
latedbyanumberofresearchers(Beard1998;Bergh2011;Carmeli2001;Chapanga2004;Char-
teris-Black2004;Gunell2009;Nordin2008;Vierkant2008).
OneissuethatremainstobeaddressedconcerningtheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor,is
astowhymetaphoricalexpressionslikebattle,duel,punchorLuftduellarenotconceptualized
aswarmetaphors,butrather,ownconceptualmetaphorsareestablished,suchasAFOOTBALL
MATCHISABATTLE,orFOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHT.Thereasonthereforeisthatamodernconception
ofwarisassumedinwhichmodernweapons(e.g.tanks,firearms),asopposedtoswordsare
71
usedinmilitaryconflict.Itisthereforeassumedthattanks,firearms,machineguns,interceptor
aircraftsandbombsconstitutemodernwarfare,ratherthanabattleofencounterwhereindi-
vidualpeoplefightanddueleachotherwithswordsandmuskets.
72
6 PRESENTATIONOFRESULTS
Thetaskofthissectionistopresentthefindingsofmyanalysis,whichwillbepresentedintwo
steps:First, Iwilloutlinetheresultsofthequantitativepartofmyresearch,andpresentthe
totalnumberofconceptualmetaphorsextractedfromthecorpus.Thedatapresentedherecon-
sistsoffrequencycountsoflinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconceptualmappingsrelatedto
non-metaphoricallanguageuse.Then,Iwillcomparethefrequencyofmetaphoricallanguage
useacrosstheEnglishandGermansubcorpora.Finally,thetokenfrequencyoflinguisticexpres-
sionsbelongingtotheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorispresented,whichcountsalloc-
currencesoflinguisticexpressionsthatbelongtotheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor.The
secondstepisconcernedwiththequalitativeanalysisofmydata.Here,Iwilltakeacloserlook
atthoseconceptualmetaphorsthataremostsalientapartfromtheconceptualizationoffoot-
ballintermsofwar.Byapplyingthetokenfrequencyanalysisthoseconceptualmetaphorswill
beidentifiedthathaveamajorimpactinshapingthediscourseoffootball.
6.1.1 Quantitativeanalysis
Thequantitativestudyshowsthatoutofthetotalof12,538wordsthatmakeuptheentirecor-
pus,301instancesoflinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconceptualmappingsareidentified.As
canbeseenfromFigure1,theEnglishsubcorpus,whichamountsto6,232numberofwords,
exhibitsatotalnumberof161instancesoflinguisticmetaphor.WhiletheGermansubcorpus
containssomemorewordsthantheEnglishone,namely6,306,thenumberofmetaphorically
usedexpressionsisslightlylower,amountingto140.Thismeansthatintotalabout2.4%ofthe
wordsfromtheentirecorpusareusedmetaphorically,whereasroughly2.6%linguisticmeta-
phorsmanifestingconceptualmappingsarefoundintheEnglishsubcorpusand2.2%occurin
theGermansubcorpus.That is tosay,Figure1 shows that thepercentageofmetaphorically
usedexpressionsinthetwosubcorporadonotdivergesignificantlyinthepresenteddata.
73
Figure1Totalfrequencyofwordsinthecorpusincomparisontolinguisticmetaphors
These figures reflect the overall distribution of linguistic metaphorsmanifesting conceptual
mappings,thatis,ontheonehand,intheentirecorpusandontheotherhand,inadirectcom-
parisonoftheGermanandEnglishsubcorpus.However,whenlookingatthedifferentmetaphor
categoriesseparately,asomewhatdifferentpictureemerges.Thus,whilethegeneraldistribu-
tionofmetaphorsacrossthetwosubcorporadoesnotdivergesignificantly,theresultsofthe
individualcategoriesexhibitadifferentdistribution.
Category Totalnumberofmetaphors
NumberofGermanmetaphors
NumberofEnglishmetaphors
Structuralmetaphors 181 101 80Orientationalmeta-phors
69 18 51
Ontologicalmetaphors 51 21 30
Table2Distributionofmetaphorsacrossthethreedifferentmetaphortypes
AscanbeseenfromTable2,structuralmetaphors leadtherankorder incomparisontothe
othertwocategories.WhiletheGermansubcorpusexhibits101occurrencesofstructuralmet-
aphors, in the English subcorpus 80 instances are found. The fact that structuralmetaphors
makeupthehighestnumberamongthethreecategoriesisnotatallasurprisingresult.Assump-
tions fromtheoryhavesuggestedthatstructuralmetaphorsareamongthemostextensively
usedmetaphors.However,an interesting finding is the relativelyhighnumberofontological
metaphorsthatarefoundinthecorpus,amountingto51occurrencesintheentirecorpus,since
thetheorysuggeststhatontologicalmetaphorsoftenarenotnoticedasbeingmetaphoricalat
all(Lakoff&Johnson2003:27).Onepossiblereasonaccountingforaratherhighdensityofon-
12538
6232
6306
301
161
140
T O TA L ENG L I SH GERMAN
Numberofwords Linguisticmetaphors
74
tologicalmetaphorinthedatamaybethefactthatontologicalmetaphorscanbefurtherelab-
orated(Lakoff&Johnson2003:27).Whatthismeansisbestexplainedwithanexample.The
ontologicalmetaphorAFOOTBALLTEAMISANOBJECTmaybeelaboratedtoAFOOTBALLTEAMISAMA-
CHINEasin“Theyarestartingtobuildaheadofsteam”(MBM04).Thedataexhibitsquiteanum-
berofunderlyingcross-domainmappingsbetweenthedomainsFOOTBALLandPHYSICALOBJECT.
Also,thedescriptionoftimeinfootballismostlyexpressedviametaphors,inwhichtimeiscon-
ceptualizedasaphysicalobjectasin“HALFTIME:Arsenal1-2ManchesterCity”(MBM04).Here,
theconceptOBJECTisprofiledontoTIME,thusmakingitpossibletotalkabouthalf-timeandfull-
time.
Sofar,mostlyfindingsconcerninglinguisticmetaphorshavebeenpresented.Now,Iwouldlike
togiveanoverviewoftheresultsconcerningthecorrespondingconceptualmetaphorsthatthe
metaphoricallinguisticexpressionsmakemanifest.Theanalysisofthe301linguisticexpressions
thatwereextractedfromthecorpushasshownthataconsiderablenumberofunderlyingcross-
domainmappingshavebeenidentified,makingmanifestatotalof80conceptualmetaphors.
Table3isanextractfromtheanalyzeddata,showingoneexampleofalinguisticexpressionin
theright-handcolumnandtheircorrespondingconceptualmetaphorsprintedinboldtypeto
theleft.Forinstance,Table3showsbywayofexamplewhichlinguisticmetaphorismademan-
ifest inAFOOTBALLMATCHISAPERFORMANCEconceptualmetaphor.This is illustrated inexample
(19a).Further,example(19b)showswhichlinguisticmetaphorismademanifestbytheconcep-
tualmetaphorFOOTBALLISMAGIC.
(19) a. SensationalfromNeymarastheBraziliandancesintotheBilbaobox(MBM05)
b. You justgetthefeelingthatthevisitorsneedtoscoreduringthis impressivespell(MBM05)
footballisadanceperformance SensationalfromNeymarastheBraziliandancesintotheBilbaobox
footballisaphysicalfight ArsenalagiertbissigerindenZweikämpfen
footballisanentity High-tempofootball
footballislikeaboat DerSchussaus14Meternsegeltklarlinksvorbei.
footballismagic Youjustgetthefeelingthatthevisitorsneedtoscoreduringthisimpressivespell
footballissurgery butclinicalfinishingfromthehomesidehasbeenthedifferencehere
footballiswar DasistallerdingswederFlankenochSchuss
afootballmatchisatheaterperfor-mance
DerbeweistÜbersichtundsetztAguerorechtsinSzene
afootballmatchisabattle eskommtzumKampfderSchwergewichte
afootballmatchisamusicperfor-mance
MessiprobiertesmiteinemSolo
afootballmatchisavisit IndenletztenMinutenkommtoffensivkaumnochetwasvondenGästen
afootballmatchisacontainer Giroudisstrugglingtogetintothegame
afootballmatchisajourney Oziljusthadhalfachanceaftertheballarrivedathisfeet
afootballmatchislikeameal EsgibtdreiMinutenNachschlag
75
afootballmatchislikeholymass DieMessescheintgelesen
afootballmatchisliquid plätschertvorsichher
thequarterfinalisabuilding MitdemhistorischenErfolgziehtBarcelonainsViertelfinaleein
afootballfieldislikewater dochOspinatauchtabundlenktdenwuchtigenSchusszurSeite
thefootballfieldisone'shome asLuisSuarezheadshome
thepenaltyareaisacontainer ziehtvonlinksindieBoxein
thegoalisacontainer DerBallverfehltdenKasten
thegoalisasafetystructure direktinsGehäusezuzirkeln
footballteamsaremachines Theyarestartingtobuildaheadofsteam
footballteamsareanimals ArsenalagiertbissigerindenZweikämpfen
footballteamsareensembles gilttrotzdemalsSprachrohrvonTrainerUnaiEmeryundalsLeiterdesMittelfeld-Ensembles
footballteamsareheavyweight eskommtzumKampfderSchwergewichte
footballteamsareliquid Barcelonacontinuetofloodnumbersforwardinsearchofasecondgoalonthenight
footballplayersaremythicalcreatures TheSpanishgiantsareheadingintothequarter-finalsinquiteincrediblefashion
footballplayersareforcesofnature dafürdarfPacoAlcácerimSturmzentrumagieren
footballplayersareobstacles woDeMarcoswegrutschtundNeymardadurchfreieFahrthat
footballplayersareprisonguards Parisschaffteszunehmend,sichzubefreien
footballplayersarebuildings FernandinhoschicktSterlingsteilindieGasse
footballplayersareequipment theyarecomingupagainstaverystrongPSGoutfit
footballplayersarefisherman MeunierfischtdasLedernochraus
footballplayersareobjects beforefeedingalowcrossintoNeymar
footballplayersarefarmers senstdenCity-Kapitänum
footballplayersaremachines jedochohneZugzumTor
beingsubstitutedmeansgoingdown Welbeckmussrunter
positionsarebuildings Mathieubreaksintoaforwardposition
scoringagoalispouringadrink könnenwirihnensechseinschenken
scoringagoaliscarpentry woCavanidieKugelhumorlosunterdieLattenagelt
scoringagoalisphysicalfight Garciahitsonefromdistance
eventsinfootballarepreciousobjects Thisisacollector'sitem
eventsinfootballareobjects Bilbaocontinuetoplaygoodstuffinthefinalthirdofthefield
eventsinfootballarehuman DasSpielnimmtsichgeradeeinekleineAuszeit
advantageisanobject andtakethelead.
attemptstoscoreagoalareobjects Thechampionsarefullofitatthemomentastheygosearchingfortheirsecondoftheafter-noon
attemptstoscoreagoalmeansdoingcarpentry
TheBelgian'sfirst-timeeffortfrom20yardshitthewoodwork
tacklingisawrestlingmatch RakitićgehtindenRingkampfmitVerratti
defenseisawall undtrifftnurdieMauer
defeatisavalley stütztedietapferenPariserinsTalderTränen
defeatislikestandingintherain NeymarlässtDeMarcosaufdemlinkenFlügelimRegenstehen
losingmeansgettingatoothpulled zogdenBaskenendgültigdenZahn
thelosingteamisbehind Aftertwicebeingbehind
thelosingteamisdown findthemselves1-0downfollowingAlcacer'sfirstleaguegoalforBarcelona
thewinningteamisabove Cityhavealsolostgroundontwoofthethreeteamsabovethem
opponentisheavy AthleticBilbaoistdererwartetschwereGegner
lowqualityisdown Hecan'tbehappywiththewayinwhichhissidehavedroppeddeeperandareneglectingtheirusualpassinggame.
76
failingislikeamedicalcondition unddieAbwehrumGerardPiquéwurdevondentemporeichenSpielzügenderPariserschwindeliggespielt
victoryisabookchapter MiteinemWeiterkommengegenBarcelonawürdedasProjekteinweitereserfolgreichesKa-pitelhinzubekommen
footballingsuperiorityisroyalpower Ithasbeenaprofessionalsecond-halfperformancefromthereigningchampions
successissurviving PSGarejustaboutsurvivingatthemoment
theballisaliquidsubstance Cityaretakingtheirtimeinsprayingtheballabout
causingmotionofballisdriving whowasabletodrivetheballintothebottomcorner
controlofaballmeansphysicalcontacttoit
andSanelatchesontoit
getpossessionofballmeansconquer-ing
WalcotterobertdenBall
goalsaremoneyinanaccount IndererstenHälftewarendieBaskendasbessereTeamundhatteneinigeHochkaräterzuverbuchen,
highqualityisafruit DeBruyneplaysapeachofapassthroughthemiddle
highqualityisgold DerKroateerzielteimHinspieldengoldenenTrefferzum1:0-SiegseinesTeams
highqualityisolympic DasolympischeTorgelingtallerdingsnicht
aperiodoftimeisanentity DenGästengehörtedieAnfangsphasemitdemFührungstrefferdurchSané
aminuteisalivingbeing Thehalf-timewhistlegoesattheEmiratesStadiumandCityleadafterafineopening45minutes
timeisacontainer IndenletztenMinutenkommtoffensivkaumnochetwasvondenGästen.
timeisapath undhattenüberweiteStreckenderPartiegroßeProbleme
timeisaphysicalobject HALFTIME:Arsenal1-2ManchesterCity
influenceislikebranding demSpielseinerMannschaftseinenStempelaufzudrücken
atmosphereislikeaforceofnature DasCampNoumusseinerDruckwellegleichen
emotionsarelikeboilingwater DieEmotionenkochenschonfrühhoch
ruthlessnessislowtemperature DerArgentiniervollendetausachtMeternhalbrechterPositioninslangeEck.Eiskalt
nameishuman Navasgoesintothebook
Table3Extractfromthedatashowinglinguisticexpressionsmanifestingconceptualmetaphors
Furthermore,thequantitativestudyshowsthattheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorleads
therankorderoflinguisticmetaphorsinquantitativeterms.Theresultsshowthattheconcep-
tualmetaphorFOOTBALLISWARhasthehighestproportionofmetaphoricallinguisticexpressions
with68instances(i.e.metaphorictokens)pertainingtoit.Thedatareportedhereistheresult
ofatokenfrequencyanalysis(cf.Kövecsesetal.2015:345).Forthispurpose,alloccurrencesof
linguisticexpressionsthatbelongtotheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorarecounted.Fig-
ure2illustratesthedistributionoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphoracrosstheGerman
andEnglishsubcorpus.While21outofthe68(i.e.31%)instancesoflinguisticexpressionsman-
ifestingtheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmappingarefoundintheEnglishsubcorpus,theremain-
ing47(i.e.69%)instancesthatcanberelatedtotheWARsourcedomainarefoundintheGerman
subcorpus.
77
Figure2DistributionofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphoracrossthetwosubcorpora
AstheseresultsinFigure2indicate,thereisaconsiderabledifferencebetweentheconceptual-
izationoffootballintermsofwarbetweenthetwosubcorpora.TheoccurrencesoftheFOOTBALL
ISWARconceptualmetaphorintheGermansubcorpusmakeupconsiderablymorethanhalfof
thetotalnumberofwarmetaphors,amountingto69%.
WhenlookingatFigure3,whichdepictsthefrequencyoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmeta-
phorrelativetothetotalnumberofconceptualmetaphorsintheGermanandEnglishsubcor-
pus, a somewhat different picture emerges.While theGerman subcorpus exhibits a smaller
numberofconceptualmetaphorsingeneral,theconceptualizationoffootballintermsofwar-
fareseemstobeaverysalientfeatureofGermansoccerlanguage,makingupmorethanone
thirdofthetotalnumberofconceptualmetaphors(i.e.33.6%).Thisindicatesaratherhighden-
sityofsuchaconceptualizationoffootball.However,giventhetotalnumberof161instancesof
linguisticexpressionsintheEnglishsubcorpus,thematerialturnedouttocontain21metaphor-
icalexpressionswhichcanbeclassifiedasrelatingtotheconceptualsourcedomainofwar,cor-
respondingto13%.
31%
69%
English German
161
140
21
47
0 50 100 150 200
English
German
NumberofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphors
Totalnumberofconceptualmetaphors
Figure3FrequencyofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorrelativetothetotalnum-berofconceptualmetaphorsacrossthetwosubcorporaFigure3FrequencyofFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphorrelativetothetotalnumberofconceptualmetaphorsacrossthetwosubcorpora
78
Moreover, relyingon the type-tokendistinction, it is calculatedhowmanydifferent typesof
these68metaphorictokensidentifiedinthewholecorpusaremotivatedbythesourcedomain
WAR.Thatistosay,thetypefrequencyoflinguisticexpressionsbelongingtotheFOOTBALLISWAR
conceptualmetaphorisdetermined(cf.Kövecsesetal.2015:345).Overall,the68linguisticex-
pressionsidentifiedinthewholecorpusrealize20metaphorictypes(forexample,differentse-
manticrealizationsofthelexemeshootcanbesubsumedunderasinglemetaphorictype;this
includes conversions and morphological derivations from one and the same morphological
head).AsshowninTable4,moreinstancesofmetaphorictypesandtokensarefoundinthe
Germansubcorpus.Outofthe47metaphorictokensthatarefoundintheGermansubcorpus,
14differentmetaphoric typesaremotivatedby thesourcedomainWAR,while in theEnglish
subcorpusthenumberoftypesisconsiderablylower,amountingto6metaphorictypesoutof
the21metaphorictokens.Altogether,thesemetaphorictypesshowametaphorictype-token
ratio(mTTR)ofabout0.29.9All inall, itcanbesaidthatinGermanthemostfrequentlyused
conceptualmappingisbetweenthedomainsFOOTBALLandWAR
WholeCorpus German EnglishMetaphorictypes 20 14 6Metaphorictokens 68 47 21mTTR 0.29 0.30 0.29
Table4Resultsofthetype-tokenanalysisoftheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmetaphor
Whatcanbeseenfromthefiguresaboveisarepresentationofhowtheconceptualizationof
football in termsofwar isdistributedacross the twosubcorpora.However, thequantitative
analysisalsoaddressesthequestionwhatmetaphortypesareusedinEnglishandGermanMBM
livecommentaries.Figure4belowshowsacomparisonofthemostfrequentlyusedmetaphors
inEnglishandGerman.Forthisanalysisonlythoseconceptualmetaphorsareincludedwhich
aremademanifestbyfiveormoreinstantiationsoflinguisticmetaphors.Bothsubcorporaex-
hibitatotalnumberof6conceptualmetaphorswhichcanbesaidaremostfrequentlyused.
Thereishoweveronesignificantdifferenceintermsofwhichconceptualmetaphorisusedmost
frequently.Contrary tomyexpectation, thewarmetaphordoesnotconstitute themost fre-
quentmetaphorsinbothlanguages.IntheEnglishsubcorpusFOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHTaswell
asFOOTBALLISWARmakeupthelargestshareofthemostfrequentlyusedmetaphors,bothmak-
ingup23%.ThisiscloselyfollowedbytheTIMEISACONTAINERmetaphorandTHEFOOTBALLFIELDIS
ONE’SHOME,amountingto18%and17%respectively.Incontrast,withrespecttothemostfre-
9ThemTTRiscalculatedasfollows:numberoftypes/numberoftokens
79
quentlyusedmetaphorstheGermansubcorpusexhibitsindeedabout50%warmetaphors.Sim-
ilartotheEnglishsubcorpustheTIMEISACONTAINERandTHEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOMEmetaphor
takesecondandthirdplacerespectivelyintherankofthemostfrequentlyusedmetaphors.The
conceptualmetaphorsthatmakeupthesmallestshareintheGermansubcorpusareTHEGOALIS
ACONTAINER,AFOOTBALLMATCHISAVISIT,andAFOOTBALLMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE,amounting
to8%each.However,intheEnglishsubcorpustheconceptualmetaphorwhichislessfrequently
usedistheFOOTBALLTEAMSAREANIMALSconceptualmetaphor,correspondingto6%.Furthermore,
thismetaphorisnotrepresentedamongthesixmostfrequentlyusedmetaphorsinGerman.
Figure4ComparisonofmostfrequentlyusedmetaphorsinEnglishandGerman
6.1.2 Qualitativeanalysis
What follows from thequantitativeanalysisprovided in theprevious section is that thedis-
coursesthatshapesoccercomefromasignificantnumberofotherconceptualdomains.The
analysishasyielded80underlyingcross-domainmappingsthatplayamajorroleintheconcep-
tualizationoffootball.Inthefollowing,Iwilltrytoidentifythemostsalientconceptualmeta-
phors(outofthetotalof80conceptualmetaphors)thatcontributetoshapingthediscourseof
football.
80
Inordertobeabletodeterminewhichotherconceptualmetaphors,apartfromFOOTBALLISWAR,
arethemostfrequentinshapingthediscourseoffootball,thetokenfrequencyanalysisisap-
pliedtootherconceptualmetaphorsthatarepresumedtomanifestthemostmetaphoricex-
pressions.Thatistosay,ahightokenfrequencyoflinguisticexpressionsbelongingtoaparticular
conceptualmetaphoristakentobeanindicatorofthemetaphoricalsalienceoftheconceptual
metaphorinquestion.Table5showstheresultsofthemetaphorictokenanalysis,revealingthe
tenmostfrequentconceptualmetaphorsfoundintheentirecorpus.Sincethereisasignificant
dropinfrequencyfromthefifthrankedmetaphoronwards,onlythefirstfiveconceptualmeta-
phors(i.e.FOOTBALLISWAR,FOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHT,TIMEISACONTAINER,AFOOTBALLMATCHISA
VISIT,andTHEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOME)willbepresentedinmoredetail.
Conceptualmetaphor NumberofmetaphorictokensFOOTBALLISWAR 68FOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHT 31TIMEISACONTAINER 25AFOOTBALLMATCHISAVISIT 22THEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOME 15THEGOALISACONTAINER 7FOOTBALLTEAMSAREANIMALS 7AFOOTBALLMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE 7AFOOTBALLFIELDISLIQUID 5TIMEISAPHYSICALOBJECT 5
Table5Overviewofthemostsalientconceptualmetaphorsfoundinthecorpus
Inthefollowing,Iwillpresentsamplesentencesthathavebeenextractedfromthecorpusex-
hibitingmetaphoricalexpressions(whichwillbeprintedinitalics)manifestingthefirstfivecon-
ceptualmappingsshowninTable5.Eachconceptualmetaphorispresentedinturn,giveninthe
sameorderasshowninthetableabove.Fromthisitshallbedeterminedwhetherthetwolan-
guagesinquestionexhibitsimilaritiesordifferencesintermsofthekindsofsourcedomainsthat
areexploited.
FOOTBALLISWAR
(20) a. DerAbprallerlandetbeiIvanRakitić,derdiePilleaberindenAbendhimmelvonLesCortsballert.(MBM02)
b. DerSchussaus14Meternsegeltklarlinksvorbei(MBM01)
c. DerAngreiferistlängstnichtmehrsoaktiv(MBM02)
d. DieGefahristvorbei(MBM03)
e. DasTeamvonLuisEnriquehatnunBlutgeleckt(MBM02)
f. Barcelonaarealwaysdangerousonthecounter-attack(MBM05)
g. Justonegoalforthevisitorscouldkillthistie(MBM06)
81
h. Sanchezreceivestheballontheedgeoftheareaandhisonlythoughtistoshoot.(MBM04)
i. DefeatforBarcelonathisafternoon(MBM05)
j. buthefiredhighoverthecrossbar(MBM04)
Ithasalreadybeenshowninthequantitativeanalysisthatthesourcedomainwarismoresalient
inGermanthaninEnglish.Hence,thedatasuggeststhatfootballisextensivelyconceptualized
intermsofideasandimagesthatarerelatedtowarfareandviolence.Themetaphoricexpres-
sionsgiveninexample(20a-j)arewordsandphrasestakenfromthedomainofwar,whichin-
cludeshooting,defending,firing,blood,threatordanger,attackanddefense,onlytonamea
few.While theverbs fire, shootandstrike arehighly common termsusuallyassociatedwith
warfarewhichexpresstheinteractionbetweenaplayerandtheball,expressionslikebulletand
shotareusedinfootballreportingtorefertoaballflyingthroughtheairatgreatspeed.Itis
thusrelativelyeasytoreconstructtheunderlyingcross-domainmappingbetweenwarandfoot-
ballonthebasisofwhatweknowaboutthenotionofwar.TheFOOTBALLISWARconceptualmet-
aphorwillnotbedescribedingreaterdetailhere,assection7willprovideathoroughdiscussion
ofthephenomenoninquestion.
TheconceptualmetaphorthatrankssecondintermsofusagefrequencyisFOOTBALLISAPHYSICAL
FIGHT.SomeofthelinguisticmetaphorsthatmakemanifesttheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALL
ISAPHYSICALFIGHTareillustratedinexamples(21a-g).
FOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHT
(21) a. ArsenalagiertbissigerindenZweikämpfen(MBM01)
b. Otamendi legt den Ball nach einem langen Schlag völlig unbedrängt für Özil auf(MBM01)
c. NavasfordertimDuellmitMonrealeinHandspielimSechzehner(MBM01)
d. DerStürmergehtimLuftduellmitIraizozzuBoden(MBM02)
e. Ospinaisabletodivetohisrighttopunchclear(MBM04)
f. WehavenotseentoomuchfromAdurizsincethestrikerenteredthefield(MBM05)
g. asNeymarbeatshisfull-backontheleftbeforedeliveringalowcrossintoAlcacer(MBM05)
AscanbeseenfromTable4,theconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHTismademan-
ifestby31instancesoflinguisticmetaphorsintheentirecorpus.TheEnglishsubcorpusfeatures
21metaphoricalexpressionsfromthesourcedomainPHYSICALFIGHT,whereasintheGermansub-
corpusonly10occurrencesarefound.Example(21a-g)illustratesthemetaphoricexpressions
thatmakemanifesttheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHT,whichincludestrike,
beat,hit,duelandpunch.TheanalogiesthatcanbedrawnbetweenthedomainsofFOOTBALL
82
andPHYSICALFIGHTrestontheassumptionthatfootball isacompetitivegamewhichoften in-
volveseventsinwhichplayersareengagedinphysicalcontact.Forexample,situationsmayoc-
curinwhichplayersdirectlyorindirectlyhavephysicalcontactwithanopponent.Theevents
depictedinexamples(21a,c,d,eandg)allrefertoone-on-onesituationsinwhichoneplayer
exclusively encountersone singleopponentwith theobjective to getpossessionof theball.
WhilethedomainofPHYSICALFIGHTisalsoexploitedtodescribeapassintheGermansubcorpus,
asillustratedinexample(21b),theEnglishnounstrikerin(21f)referstothepositionwhichis
assignedtoaplayerandwhoseroleitistoscoremostgoalsonbehalfoftheirteam.
Thecross-domainmappingthatranksthirdwithregardstosalienceisbetweenthesourcedo-
mainTIMEandthetargetdomainCONTAINER.Duetothehighfrequencyofuse,theTIMEISACON-
TAINERmetaphorcanjustifiablybeincludedintheanalysisoffootball-relatedmetaphors.There-
fore,eventhoughtheconceptualmetaphorTIMEISACONTAINERisnotexclusivetofootball,itis
neverthelessdiscussedingreaterdetailinatthispoint.TheconceptualmetaphorTIMEISACON-
TAINERoccurs25timesintheentirecorpus,whereas9instancesarefoundintheGermansub-
corpusand16intheEnglish.
TIMEISACONTAINER
(22) a. Schoninder3.MinutetrafRaúlGarcíanurdenPfosten(MBM02)
b. IndenletztenMinutenkommtoffensivkaumnochetwasvondenGästen.(MBM01)
c. DerZauberflohwirdnachseinerwohlschwächstenLeistung indiesemJahrausge-wechselt(MBM02)
d. Possession for Barcelona as we enter the first of three additional minutes here(MBM05)
e. Barcelonaleadonthenightinsidethreeminutes(MBM06)
f. weenterthefinal30minuteshere(MBM05)
Examples(22a-f)illustratetheconceptualmetaphorTIMEISACONTAINER.Timeexpressionslikein
thenthminute,asgiveninexamples(22a)and(22b)arebasedonthecross-domainmappingof
thesourcedomainCONTAINERontothetargetdomainTIME.Here,theabstractnotionoftimeis
conceptualizedashavingaphysicaldimensionintheshapeofacontainerwhichcanbeentered
asin(22d)and(22f),orwhereonecanstayinside,asillustratedin(22a,b,c,ande).Thisphe-
nomenonisbestexplainedbycomparisontothenon-metaphoricaluseoftheprepositionin,as
forinstanceexemplifiedinthesentenceTomis inthekitchen. Itcanbesaidthatakitchenis
reallyaroom(whichresemblestheconceptcontainer)whichcanbeenteredusingadoor,in
whichonecanstayinsideandleaveitagain.Infootballreportingthisconceptismappedonto
theimpalpableconceptoftime.Therefore,inalltheabovesentences(22a-f)periodsoftimeare
comparedtocontainersthatcanalsobeenteredandinwhichonecanstayin.Thiscanbebest
83
seeninexamples(22d)and(22f)whicharetakenfromtheEnglishsubcorpus.Inbothsentences,
eventheverbenterisusedtodothisclaimjustice.However,thisconceptualizationoftimedoes
cannotonlybeappliedtominutes.Likewise,ascanbeseeninexample(22c),itisquiteacom-
monphenomenoninfootballreportingtoalsodrawanalogiesbetweenthetimeconceptYEAR
andthesourcedomaincontainer.However,turningtothepresentdata,theanalysisofboth
subcorporashowsthatthephraseinthenthminuteisthemostfrequentlyusedexpressionto
specifytimeinfootball.
Finally,theconceptualmetaphorthatranksfourthasfarassalienceisconcerned,istheconcep-
tualmappingbetweensourcedomainVISIT/MEETINGandthetargetdomainFOOTBALLMATCH.Some
ofthelinguisticmetaphorsthatmakemanifesttheconceptualmetaphorAFOOTBALLMATCHISA
VISITarepresentedinexample(23a-f).Theconceptualmetaphorinquestionoccursinbothsub-
corporawithatotalof22linguisticmetaphors,whereas14arecountedintheEnglishsubcorpus
andonly7intheGermanone.
AFOOTBALLMATCHISAVISIT
(23) a. NachBallbesitzstehtes58zu42fürdieHausherren(MBM02)
b. Den Gästen gehörte die Anfangsphase mit dem Führungstreffer durch Sané.(MBM01)
c. AhighballwasnotclearedbythevisitorsandLuisSuarezwasonhandtoflickhisheaderpasttheisolatedTrapp(MBM06)
d. AnawaygoalforthevisitorstonightwouldleaveBarcelonaneedingtoscoresixtimeswithoutreply(MBM06)
e. butonepieceofbrilliancefromNeymarandAlcacerseesthehostslead(MBM05)
f. BeidenGastgebernkommtMascheranofürdenüberfordertenPiquéaufdenPlatz(MBM02)
Examples(23a-f)illustratethatafootballmatchisfrequentlyconceptualizedasameetingora
visit.ThedataindicatesthattheteamthatplaysatitshomestadiumisreferredtoasHausherren
(23a)inGermanlivecommentaries.Likewise,thetermhost isusedtorefertotheteamthat
playsatthehomestadium.Thisexpression isquitecommonlyused inboth languagesand is
illustratedinexamples(23e)and(23f).Theyaretheteamsthatreceiveguestsandvisitorsas
exemplifiedin(23b),(23c)and(23d).
Whatdirectlyfollowsfromtheconceptualizationofafootballmatchasavisitinwhichguests
andhostsplayacentralrole,istheseparationofthefootballpitchintotwoseparatesides,which
areallocatedtoeachteam.Asshowninexample(24)below,theteamthathoststhefootball
matchattheirhomestadiumalsoplaysonthesideofthefieldwhichisreferredtoastheirhome.
WhattheconceptualmetaphorTHEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOMEsuggests,isthattheteamhosting
84
thegameplaysonthesideofthepitchwhichisconceptualizedastheirhome.Themappingof
theconceptHOMEontothefootball field,thus,makesexpressions likeexample(24)possible.
Thisunderstandinginvolvesasetofmappingsbetweentheconstituentelementsofthesource
domainHOMEandthoseofthetargetdomainFOOTBALLFIELD.Thefootballfieldisthepermanent
residenceforateam(thehomeside)andtheindividualplayersintheteamhavedifferentposi-
tionsandfunctionsonthepitch.
THEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOME
(24) LuisSuarezheadshome(MBM06)
Tosumup,accordingtothedatapresentedhere,thesourcedomainswhichareexploitedto
thehighestdegreebyfootballreportsinordertodescribethediscoursesthatshapethenotion
offootball,areWAR,PHYSICALFIGHT,CONTAINER,VISIT/MEETING,HOME,ANIMALS,THEATERPERFORMANCE,
LIQUID,andPHYSICALOBJECT.
85
7 DISCUSSION
Themainobjectiveofthepresentstudywastodeterminewhichdiscoursesshapethenotionof
football,specificallythismeans,whichsourcedomainsareexploited inordertodescribethe
eventsthatoccurduringafootballmatch.Thefindingsthatwerepresentedthroughoutthelast
sectionweremainlyconfined toconcretenumbersandpracticalexamples.This sectionnow
seekstolinkbacktheresultsoftheempiricalstudytotheaimspresentedattheoutsetofthis
thesis.Overalltheoutcomeofthestudyisambivalenttosomeextentbutintheend,ithasto
besaidthatthedatarathersuggeststhatfootballisnotnecessarilyconceptualizedintermsof
war,eventhoughitwashypothesizedthatthewarmetaphormaybetheprevailingconceptual
metaphorinthecorpus.
Thatcanbeseenfromthequantitativeanalysisalone.AscanbeseenfromFigure4above,which
isanillustrationofthesixmostfrequentlyusedconceptualmetaphorsinbothsubcorpora,only
about20%ofthemetaphorsfoundintheEnglishcommentarywereactuallywarmetaphors.
Nowonecouldsaythatthesecondgroupthatisaslarge,thephysicalfightmightbepartofa
warmetaphorbutthereweregoodreasonsforexcludingthemfromthegroup.Actionsuchas
physicallybeatingsomeone,punchingsomeoneorduelingthemarenotpartofwhatconstitutes
atypicalelementofmodernwarfare.Infact,thelabelfootballiswarwasassignedinarather
generousmanner.PhrasessuchaserhatBlutgeleckt,etwassorgtfürGefahr,orkillingsome-
thingmightbetypicalforsituationinwarbutcouldbeassignedtotherealmsofanimallifeor
otherhumanexperiences.
Onsomelevelofcoursethereisacertainkindofparallelbetweenaconceptualizationofwar
and that of a football match. The ongoing competition can be seen as war, the individual
matchesarebattle,theteamsaretwoarmiesconfrontingeachotherandtheindividualmoves
inthegamecanbelinkedtoactionsinacombatsituation.Inthissenseonecouldarguethatas
Kövecses(2010:37)putsit“thesourcedomainprovidesarelativelyrichknowledgestructure
for the target concept.” There are however, two consideration thatmitigate the conceptual
analogy.Foronething,thereisquantitativedatathatratherlendsitselftotheinterpretation
thattheactuallinguisticrealizationsarenotnecessarilyinstantiationsofcross-domainmapping.
Foranother,thenotionofwhatametaphortypicallydoesindiscourse,thatis,makingabstract
conceptsconcreteorunfamiliaronesfamiliarisquestionableinthiscontext.Bothwillbedis-
cussedsubsequentparagraphs(Gibbs2008;Steen2007a).
Ifone lookscloselyattheactual linguisticexamplesthatmakeupthesetofmetaphorssub-
sumedundertheheadingFOOTBALLISWAR,onecanimmediatelyseethatitisonlyacertainset
86
oflinguisticitemsthatcanbefoundthere.Table4intheprevioussectionsummarizesthetype-
tokenratio,showingthatthealmost50Germanphrasesthatsuggestamappingofwaronto
football are realized by only 14 differentmetaphoric types, and English only has 6 different
phraseswhicharerepeatedlyusedtomakeupthetotalsetof21warmetaphors.Intermsof
thestructureofwarbeingusedtoconceptualizethestructureoffootball,metaphorsarealso
onlyusedforthemovesinthegame.Noneofthehigherlevelstructures,like,thematchorthe
competition,were referred to as throughwarmetaphors in the corpus.Moreover,manyof
thesetermsareusedsofrequentlyinanyconversationonfootball,suchasshotandtheGerman
equivalent Schuss, orAbwehr and the English equivalent defender, that the question arises
whether these have not conventionalized to such extent that the form-meaning-pairing be-
tweenthelinguisticrealizationandtheactionorpositioninfootballisattheforefrontofour
mind.
Steen(2007b:10)arguesthat“[c]onventionalizationofmetaphordoesnotmeanthatitcannot
bedistinguishedfromequallyconventionalnon-metaphoricallanguage.”Heusesthesentence
Samisagorillatoillustratehispoint.Toanextentthisisapointwell-made.Thelinktoashotin
footballandagunshotisinalllikelihoodstillthere,justasanytwohomonymsthathaveacertain
semanticparallelarealwaysactivatedwhenoneisused.Thequestionis,however,whetherthat
necessarilyconstitutesamappingfromthetermthathistoricallycamefirstontotheotherone.
ThisisespeciallytrueforfootballterminologywhichdifferscruciallyfromSteen’sexampleof
thegorilla.Whilethepersonassigninggorilla-likequalitiestoSam,hasmanyotheroptionsof
doingso,termssuchasshotanddefensearesimplethesignifiersthatsignifytherepresentation
oftheactioninfootball.IfwegowiththePragglejazGroup’sapproachoflookingupbasicmean-
ingsofwordsindictionariesinordertoidentifymetaphors,thenwewillfindthatmanyofthese
termsaresuggestedasthefootballspecifictermsforsuchactions.ThisisnottrueforSteen’s
useofgorilla;andSteendoesconcedethat
[m]etaphormay[…]beconventionalizedtothedegreethatitbecomespartofthelanguagecode,atleastasthisisreflectedinculturalrepositoriessuchasdictionar-iesandgrammars.Indeed,theconventionalnatureoflinguisticmetaphorhasbeenoneof themainpointsofcognitive linguistic researchon thephenomenon,andnumerousexampleshavebeenprovidedwhich show thatmetaphor is part andparcelofourlanguagesystemanditsuse.(Steen2007b:10)
Becauseofthis,whenchildrenacquirealanguage,thewordwhichtheylearnforthiskindof
passingaball toanotherperson isshooting.Whentheystartplaying inateamtheywill fre-
quentlyhearthetermsoffenceanddefenseandshootinginthecontextoffootball.Thus,they
willprobablyacquirethisform-meaningpairing.SpeakersofGermanandBritishEnglisharein
thefortunatesituationofnothavingexperiencedawarintheirhomelandsinthelast60years,
87
butpassingaballaroundisapracticethatchildreninthesecountriesshareandinfactpractice
ataveryearlyagealready.Thisfactmakesitverylikelythatthisform-meaning-pairingisinfact
acquiredbeforewarmoviesorsimilarexternalreferencescanestablishthemeaningofthese
wordsasusedinthecontextofwar.
Thesecondmitigatingfactorcarriesmoreweighteven,becauseitaddressestheverydefinition
ofwhatametaphorisincognitivetheory.Since,ashasbeenestablished,currentnativespeak-
ersofEnglishandGermantoalargeextenthavenotphysicallyexperiencedwarthemselves,the
questionariseswhetherfootballcanbeseenastheabstractconceptwhichgetsmoreaccessible
andunderstandablebymappingtheconceptofwarontoit.AsDeignan(2005:45)suggests,“the
interpretationof theabstract topic isdependentonknowledgeof thevehicle.”Arguablythe
knowledgethatpeopleincentralEuropeancountrieshaveofwhatitactuallymeanstoexperi-
enceawar is rather limited.Semino (2008:6)alsopointsout that“sourcedomains typically
correspondtoconcrete,simple,familiar,physicalandwell-delineatedexperiences,suchasmo-
tion,bodilyphenomenon,physicalobjectsandsoon.”SpeakersintheUK,inAustriaandinGer-
manyareprobablyveryfamiliarwithfootballandinfacthavephysical,bodilyexperiencesof
shootingaballandbeinghitbyashot,whileveryfewofthemhaveeverfelttheimpactofa
bullet.Therefore,warsimplydoesnotsuggestitselfasasourcedomainasdefinedinCMT.
Ifthedatawasoverwhelminglymadeupbyterminologyrelatedtowar,thenonemighthaveto
reexaminesuchaconsideration.However,atleastinthecontextofthestudyitisnot.Whatwas
foundisthenotionofafightbetweentwopartiesandtheideaofacompetition.Thisnotion
accountsformostoftheorientationalmetaphorsinthedataset.Thephysicalorientationsup
andforwardfrequentlystandinforsuccess,whereasdownandbehindareusedfordescribing
thatateamseemstobelosing.Thesameholdstrueforthenotionoftimeinthecontextof
football. Timealso featuresprominently in the setofmetaphors that frequently comeup in
MBMlivecommentaries.Itisthetargetdomaininthecomparativelylargenumberofontologi-
calmetaphorsfound inthecorpus;thecorrespondingsourcedomain istheonethat iscom-
monlyfoundinthatcontext,namelycontainer.Whatthesethreesetsofmetaphorssuggestis
thatthereisaphysicalcompetitionbetweentwogroupsinwhichonewillcomeoutontop,i.e.
win,andthatthisisacompetitionthatisverymuchundertheinfluenceoftime.Timeandsuc-
cessareabstractandtheconcretesourcedomainshelpustounderstandthose lesstangible
notionsinafairlyconventionalmanner.
Sincetheoverallaimofthisstudywastoexplorewhichsourcedomainsareexploitedinorder
toshapethediscourseoffootballreporting,itisofparticularinteresttodeterminewhichcon-
ceptualfieldsareinthebackgroundofthemindwhentalkingaboutfootball.Sincethisthesis
88
alsoseekstodeterminewhichmetaphorsexceptthewarmetaphorareusedinfootballcom-
mentary,itwouldseemthatthiscouldalsoleadtolessconventionalizedmetaphorsthanthe
conceptualizationoffootballintermsofwar.Inthisrespect,thosemetaphoricalalignmentsthat
arerealizedinmanydifferenttypesoflinguisticmetaphorsthateachhavealowtokenfrequency
areofinterest.Forinstance,thephysicalprowessofthewinningteamisconceptualizedinterms
ofthestrengthofananimal,asshowninexample(25a-c),orforceofnature,asillustratedin
(26a-b), inamuchmorecreativemanner,thanwhencommentatorsusetermsfromthewar
domain.
(25) a. asBilbaocontinuetohuntinpacks(MBM05)
b. LängsthabenKlubswieMünchenoderebenBarcelonadieFühlernachihmausge-streckt(MBM03)
c. undlauertaufKonter(MBM03)
(26) a. Barcelonacontinuetofloodnumbersforwardinsearchofasecondgoalonthenight(MBM06)
b. dafürdarfPacoAlcácerimSturmzentrumagieren(MBM02)
Insuchmomentsoffastcommentary,thesourcedomainsthatthespeakerseemstochoose
whencreativelydescribingtheeventsonthefieldaretakenfromavarietyofdifferentconcep-
tualdomains.Thereisevidenceinthecorpusofthenotionofcooperationwithinateambeing
conceptualizedwith other source domains thanwar. Rather than choosing from terms that
woulddrawaparalleltoanarmythespeakersthatproducedthetextsinthecorpusofthestudy
chosemusicalortheatergroupsastheappropriateparallel,talkingaboutensembles,jemanden
inSzenesetzen,andateam’sGeneralprobe.
Thenotionofcooperationevenextendstobothteamsasaunit.WhilethreeoftheEnglishand
oneoftheGermanmetaphorsreferringtoeventsinthegamesuggestthattheentirematchis
understoodintermsofabattle,14oftheEnglishand7oftheGermanmetaphorsdescribingthe
matchactuallyconstrueitintermsofavisitorinvitation.Thereisahostandavisitingsideand
evenintheirDrangphasethevisitingsideiscalledGäste,ascanbeseeninexample(27).
(27) PacoAlcácertrafinmitteneinerDrangphasederGästezum1:0(MBM02)
ThisisalsoconnectedtothemetaphorTHEFOOTBALLFIELDISONE’SHOMEdiscussedintheprevious
section.
Soinsummary,itcanbesaidthatwhilealotofterminologythathistoricallycomesfromthe
domainofwarandprobablyactivatestheconceptualnotionsofwarinthemindsofspeakers
andlisteners,itisdifficulttosaytowhatextentthiskindofcross-domainmappingisactuallyan
instanceofaspeakerdrawingonasourcedomaintodelineateanundelineatedconcept.The
89
tokenratioforthesetermsmaybehighbutifanything,thesearehighlyconventionalizedmet-
aphors.Otherdomainssuchastheworldofanimals,naturalforces,andvisitsarealsodrawn
uponbyspeakerstocommentontheeventsonthefootballfield.Theirhightypefrequencies
suggestthatspeakersdrewthemspontaneouslymakingmanifestconceptualmetaphorsthat
arenotlinkedtotheworldofwarfare.Thisisinlinewiththeoreticalconsiderationofmetaphor
theoryitselfthatsuggeststhatembodiedphysicalexperiencesaremoreviablesourcedomains
thanunfamiliarones.Sincethespeakersandlisteners inthediscourseonfootball inAustria,
GermanyandtheUKarelikelytohavehadmorephysicalexperiencesoffootballmatchesthan
combatsituations itmakessensethatwar isnotthepreferredsourcedomain.Thenotionof
combatisstilltherebutmoreintheformofmetaphorreferringtogeneralphysicalfights.
90
8 CONCLUSION
Theprecedingsevensectionsofthisthesishavebroughtintofocusthecomplexnatureofmet-
aphorinfootballdiscourse.Thisthesiswassetoutwiththeoverallobjectivetoinvestigatethe
variousmetaphors that shape the discourse of football reporting.With the corpus-linguistic
studyunderlyingthisthesistwomainresearchquestionsweresoughttobeanswered:Firstly,
thedegreetowhichmetaphorispresentinfootballlanguageinEnglishandGermanwasdeter-
mined.Thesecondtaskoftheinvestigationwastoshowfromwhichsourcedomainsthemeta-
phoricallinguisticexpressionsderiveandhenceshapethediscourseoffootball.Inconsequence
oftheprevailingopinionthatfootballispredominantlyconceptualizedintermsofwarinmuch
ofthecurrentmetaphorstudiesthatexaminemetaphoricallanguageuseinfootballdiscourse,
itwashypothesizedthattheconceptualmetaphorFOOTBALLISWARmayalsoconstitutethevast
majorityofmetaphorsfoundinthecorpus.
Inordertoachievetheseaims,acorpus-linguisticstudywasconductedconsistingofaquantita-
tiveaswellasaqualitativeanalysis.Thequantitativeanalysiswassetout toexaminewhich
metaphortypesareusedinEnglishandGermanfootballcommentaries.Thefindingsofthein-
vestigationshowedthatmetaphoricallinguisticexpressionsderivefromawidevarietyofsource
domains.Intotal80individualconceptualmetaphorswerefound.Inbothsubcorpora,thatis
theEnglishandGermanrespectively,slightdifferencesintermsofwhichmetaphorsareused
mostfrequentlywereidentified.WhileinGermanoutofthesixmostfrequentlyusedconcep-
tualmetaphorstheonerankinghighestwasindeedFOOTBALLISWAR,theEnglishdatasuggests
thatfootballisnotnecessarilyconceptualizedinbymeansofwar.IntheEnglishsubcorpusthe
metaphorsFOOTBALLISWARandFOOTBALLISAPHYSICALFIGHToccurinequalproportions,makingup
roughly20%.Theothermetaphoricexpressionsthatleadtherankinfrequencyderivefromthe
sourcedomainsANIMALBEHAVIOR,THEATERPERFORMANCE,VISIT,HOMEANDPHYSICALFIGHT.Theresults
ofthequantitativeanalysisalsoshowedthatanotherimportantconceptwhichtakesupasig-
nificantpartinfootballreportingisthenotionoftime.Referencestoperiodsoftimearealmost
exclusivelydescribedbyusingmetaphoricallanguage.Linguisticexpressionsthatrefertotime
periodsinfootballcommentariesmakemanifesttheconceptualmetaphorTIMEISACONTAINER,
inwhichtimeisconceptualizedashavingthephysicaldimensionofacontainer.
Thequalitativeanalysisbuiltuponthequantitativeanalysisandwassetoutprovidelinguistic
evidencefortheconceptualmetaphorsthatwereidentifiedinthequantitativeanalysis.There-
fore,instancesoflinguisticmetaphorswereextractedfromthecorpusanddescribedbymeans
ofthecross-domainmappingbetweenthetwoconceptualdomainsthatmakesmanifestthe
91
mostfrequentconceptualmetaphors.Thisshouldillustratethatmetaphorsareafundamental
conceptbywhichfootballreportersconceptualizedtheworldoffootball.
Insum,themainfindingsofthestudysuggestthateventhoughthewarmetaphorrankshighest
inquantitativetermsintheGermansubcorpusandmakesupabout20%intheEnglishsubcor-
pus, there is a vastnumberofother conceptualdomains that lend themselves to shape the
realityoffootballreporting.Thus,suggestingthatfootballcanbeconceptualizedintermsofa
numberofotherdomainsthanwarfare.Oneofthemostobviousfindingsthatemergefromthis
studyisthatmetaphorsingeneralplayacentralroleintheconstructionofrealityinfootball
reportingandareapervasivephenomenonthatstructureourthinkingandknowledgeabout
theworld.Conceptualmetaphorsareusedtodescribealllevelsoffootball,namelythematch
assuch(e.g.AFOOTBALLMATCHISATHEATERPERFORMANCE),thefootballplayers(e.g.FOOTBALLPLAY-
ERSAREMYTHICALCREATURES),singleeventsinagame(e.g.EVENTSINFOOTBALLAREOBJECTS),thequal-
ityofthegame(e.g.LOWQUALITYISDOWN),aswellaswinningandlosingthegame(e.g.LOSING
MEANSGETTINGATOOTHPULLED).Thefactthatalargenumberofmetaphorswereidentifiedinthe
studyisalsoinlinewithoneofthemaintenetsofCMT,namelythatmetaphorsareapervasive
phenomenon ineveryday languageand thoughtwhichhelpus to structureour thinkingand
knowledgeandmakesenseoftheworld(cf.Lakoff&Johnson2003:3).
92
REFERENCES
Allbritton,David.1995.“Whenmetaphorsfunctionasschemas:somecognitiveeffectsofconceptualmetaphors”.Metaphorandsymbolicactivity10(1),33-46.
Azar,M.1972.“Therhetoricofsportjournalists”.LeshoneinuL’am24,25-32.
Baldauf,Christa.1997.MetapherundKognition:GrundlageneinerneuenTheoriederAlltagsmetapher.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.
Beard,Adrian.1998.Thelanguageofsport.London:Routledge.
Bergh,Gunnar.2011.“Footballiswar:acasestudyofminute-by-minutefootballcommentary”.Veredasonline-Temática15(2),83-93.
Bergh,Gunnar;Ohlander,Sölve.2012a.“EnglishdirectloansinEuropeanfootballlexis”.InFuriassi,Cristiano;Pulcini,Virginia;RodríguezGonzález,Félix(eds.).TheAnglicizationofEuropeanLexis.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,281-304.
Bergh,Gunnar;Ohlander,Sölve.2012b.“Freekicks,dribblersandWAGs:exploringthelanguageof‘thepeople’sgame’”.Modernaspråk106(1),11-46.
Black,Max.1962.ModelsandMetaphors.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Brandt,Wolfgang.2015.“Das‘WundervonBern’unddasMünchner‘Kaiser-König-Spiel’:NarratologischeAnmerkungenzuzweiFußball-DirektreportagenimHörfunk”.InBorn,Joachim;Gloning,Thomas(eds.).Sport,Sprache,Kommunikation,Medien:InterdisziplinärePerspektiven,39-78.http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2015/11823(31May2017).
Burkhardt,Armin.2006.WörterbuchderFußballsprache.Göttingen:VerlagDieWerkstatt.
Cameron,Lynne.2003.Metaphorineducationaldiscourse.London:Continuum.
Carmeli,YoramS.2001.“Metaphoricsandnationalisticsparks:thelanguageofIsraelisoccerjournalism”.Semiotica135(1/4),61-75.
Chapanga,Evans.2004.“Ananalysisofthewarmetaphorsusedinspokencommentariesofthe2004editionofthepremiersoccerleague(PSL)matchesinZimbabwe”.Zambezia31(1),62-79.
Charteris-Black,Jonathan.2004.Corpusapproachestocriticalmetaphoranalysis.London:PalgraveMacMillan.
Crystal,David.2003.Englishasagloballanguage.(2ndedition).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
de.fifa.com.Spielregeln2013/14.http://de.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013de_german.pdf(31May2017).
Deignan,Alice.2005.Metaphorandcorpuslinguistics.Vol.6.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Fifa.com.2016.Maradona’simmortal11-seconddash.http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2016/m=6/news=maradona-s-immortal-11-second-dash-2802747.html(7Nov.2016).
Fifa.com.2016/17:Lawsofthegame.https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/79/92/44/laws.of.the.game.2016.2017_neutral.pdf(31May2017).
Gibbs,RaymondW(ed.).2008.TheCambridgehandbookofmetaphorandthought.
93
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gibbs,RaymondW.2011.“Evaluatingconceptualmetaphortheory”.DiscourseProcesses48(8).529-562.
Gunell,Freja.2009.Firstbloodwenttoarsenal:astudyofmetaphorinEnglishfootballcommentary.http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:227381/FULLTEXT01.pdf(21October2016).
Herrmann,BerenikeJ.2013.Metaphorinacademicdiscourse:linguisticforms,conceptualstructures,communicativefunctionsandcognitiverepresentations.Utrecht:LOT.
Kövecses,Zoltán.2008.“Conceptualmetaphortheory:somecriticismsandalternativeproposals”.AnnualReviewofCognitiveLinguistics6(106),168-184.
Kövecses,Zoltán.2010.Metaphor:apracticalintroduction.(2ndedition).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kövecses,Zoltán.2011.“Methodologicalissuesinconceptualmetaphortheory”.InHandl,Sandra;Schmid,Hans-Jörg(eds.).Windowstothemind:metaphor,metonymyandconceptualblending.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,23-40.
Kövecses,Zoltán;Szelid,Veronika;Nucz,Eszter;Blanco-Carrión,Olga;AricaAkkök,Elif;Szabó,Réka.2015.“Angermetaphorsacrosslanguages:acognitivelinguisticperspective”.InHeredia,RobertoR.;Cieślicka,AnnaB.(eds.).BilingualFigurativeLanguageProcessing.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,341-367.
Lakoff,George.1993.“Thecontemporarytheoryofmetaphor”.InOrtony,Andrew(ed.).Metaphorandthought.(2ndedition).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,202-251.
Lakoff,George;Johnson,Mark.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Lakoff,George;Johnson,Mark.2003.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChigagoPress.
Langacker,RonaldW.1987.Foundationsofcognitivegrammar:theoreticalPrerequisites.Vol.1.Standford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Levin,Magnus.2008.“’Hittingthebackofthenetjustbeforethefinalwhistle’:high-frequencyphrasesinfootballreporting”.InLavric,Eva;Pisket,Gerhard;Skinner,Andrew;Stadler,Wolfgang(eds.).Thelinguisticsoffootball.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,143-155.
Lewandowski,Marcin.2012.“Footballisnotonlywar:non-violenceconceptualmetaphorsinEnglishandPolishsoccerlanguage”.InTaborek,Janusz;Tworek,Artur;Zielinski,Lech(eds.).SpracheundFußballimBlickpunktlinguistischerForschung.Hamburg:VerlagDr.Kovač,79-95.
Low,Graham;Todd,Zazie.2010.“Goodpracticeinmetaphoranalysis:guidelinesandpitfalls”.InCameron,Lynne;Maslen,Robert(eds.).Metaphoranalysis:researchpracticeinappliedlinguistics,socialsciencesandthehumanities.London:Equinox,217-229.
MacmillanDictionary.2017.http://www.macmillandictionary.com(26Feb.2017).
Ma,Lin;Liu,Aihua.2008.“Auniversalapproachtometaphors”.InterculturalcommunicationStudies17(1),260-268.
Musolff,Andreas.2004.Metaphorandpoliticaldiscourse:analogicalreasoningindebatesaboutEurope.Houndsmills:PalgraveMacMillanUK.
Nordin,Henrik.2008.“TheuseofconceptualmetaphorsbySwedishandGermanfootballcommentators:acomparison”.InLavric,Eva;Pisket,Gerhard;Skinner,Andrew;Stadler,
94
Wolfgang(eds.).Thelinguisticsoffootball.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,113-120.
Orwell,George.1945.TheSportingSpirit.Tribune.http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit(1December2016).
Pérez-Sabater,Carmen;Peña-Martínez,Gemma.2008.“Aspokengenregetswritten:onlinefootballcommentariesinEnglish,French,andSpanish”.WrittenCommunication25(2),235-261.
PragglejazGroup.2007.“MIP:Amethodforidentifyingmetaphoricallyusedwordsindiscourse”.Metaphorandsymbol22(1),1-39.
Reppen,Randi.2010.“Buildingacorpus:whatarethekeyconsiderations?”InO’Keeffe,Anne;McCarthy,Michael(eds.).TheRoutledgeHandbookofCorpusLinguistics.Abingdon:Routledge,31-37.
Schmid,Hans-Jörg.2016.“Aframeworkforunderstandinglinguisticentrenchmentanditspsychologicalfoundations”.InSchmid,Hans-Jörg(ed.).Entrenchmentandthepsychologyoflanguagelearning:howwereorganizeandadaptlinguisticknowledge.Berlin:DeGruyterMouton,9-35.
Semino,Elena.2008.Metaphorindiscourse.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Steen,GerardJ.1999.“Fromlinguistictoconceptualmetaphorinfivesteps”.InGibbs,RaymondW.;Steen,GerardJ.(eds.).MetaphorinCognitiveLinguistics.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,57-77.
Steen,GerardJ.2007a.Findingmetaphoringrammarandusage.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Steen,GerardJ.2007b.“Findingmetaphorindiscourse:Pragglejazandbeyond”.Culture,languageandrepresentation5,9-25.
Steen,GerardJ.2009.“Fromlinguisticformtoconceptualstructureinfivesteps:analyzingmetaphorinpoetry”.CognitivePoetics:goals,gainsandgaps,197-226.
Stefanowitsch,Anatol.2006.“Corpus-basedapproachestometaphorandmetonymy”.InStefanowitsch,Anatol;Gries,StefanTh.(eds.).Corpus-basedapproachestometaphorandmetonymy.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,1-16.
Stöckl,Hartmut.2010.“Metaphorrevisited:cognitive-conceptualversustraditionallinguisticperspectives”.AAA–ArbeitenausAnglistikundAmerikanistik35(2),189-207.
Thaler,Engelbert.2008.“Twogloballanguages:footballandEnglishlanguageteaching”.InLavric,Eva;Pisket,Gerhard;Skinner,Andrew;Stadler,Wolfgang(eds.).Thelinguisticsoffootball.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,391-397.
Thiele,Christian.2010.GebrauchsanweisungfürArgentinien.München:PiperVerlag.
Vierkant,Stephan.2008.“Metaphorandliveradiofootballcommentary”.InLavric,Eva;Pisket,Gerhard;Skinner,Andrew;Stadler,Wolfgang(eds.).Thelinguisticsoffootball.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,121-132.
Primarysources
Law,Matt.2017.“LiveCommentary:Barcelona3-0AthleticBilbao-asithappened”,4February.http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/barcelona/live-commentary/live-commentary-barcelona-vs-athletic-bilbao_291076.html(6March2017).(MBM05)
95
Law,Matt.2017.“LiveCommentary:Barcelona6-1ParisSaint-Germain-asithappened”,8March.http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/barcelona/champions-league/live-com-mentary/live-commentary-barcelona-vs-psg_293372.html(27March2017).(MBM06)
Lehmann,Martin.2017.“FCArsenal-ManchesterCity2-2”,2April.http://www.eurosport.de/fussball/premier-league/2016-2017/live-fc-arsenal-manchester-city_mtc862131/live.shtml(2April2017).(MBM01)
Müller,Christina.2017.“FCBarcelona-ParisSaint-Germain6-1”,8March.http://www.weltfussball.at/spielbericht/champions-league-2016-2017-achtelfinale-fc-barcelona-paris-saint-germain/liveticker/(27March2017).(MBM03)
Plant,Darren.2017.“LiveCommentary:Arsenal2-2ManchesterCity-asithappened”,2April.http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/arsenal/live-commentary/live-commentary-arsenal-vs-man-city_295132.html(3April2017).(MBM04)
sport.de.2017.“FCBarcelona-AthleticBilbao3-0”,2April.http://www.sport.de/fussball/spanien-primera-division/ma8272870/fc-barcelona_athletic-bilbao/liveticker/(4February2017).(MBM02)
96
APPENDICES
Appendix1:GermanAbstract
DievorliegendeDiplomarbeitpräsentierteinevergleichendekorpusbasierteUntersuchungvon
Metaphern inFußball-LivetickernderdeutschenundenglischenBerichterstattung.DieArbeit
setztsichzumZielanhandvonMetaphernlexikalischeFeldervonAusdrücken,dieindersoge-
nanntenFußballsprachegebräuchlichsind,zuidentifizierenumeinenÜberblickdarüberzuer-
langen,welcheDiskursedasKonzeptFußballprägen.DentheoretischenRahmendieserArbeit
bildetdiekonzeptuelleMetapherntheorie,welchevonLakoffundJohnson1980inihremein-
flussreichenWerkMetaphorswelivebyinsLebengerufenwurde.NachderkognitivenMeta-
pherntheoriebestehtdieHauptfunktioneinerMetapherdarin,abstrakteundkomplexeZusam-
menhänge fassbar zumachen.DieAnalysevonMetaphern indieserArbeitwirdanhandvon
qualitativenundquantitativenMethodendurchgeführt.DiequantitativeAnalysezeigt,dass80
verschiedene konzeptuelleMetaphern imKorpus vorliegen,während die qualitativeAnalyse
ergibt,dassMetaphern,welchevonFußball-ReporternverwendetwerdenumdieGeschehnisse
aufdemFußballfeldzubeschreiben,auseinerVielzahlanlexikalischenFeldernentnommenwer-
den.DieamhäufigstenverwendetenlexikalischenBereiche,diedenFußballdiskursprägen,sind
diefolgenden:Krieg,physischerKonflikt,Tierverhalten,TheatersowiedasKonzepteinesBesu-
ches.
Appendix2:Personalmotivation:wheretheideaforthisthesiscamefrom
Myinterestinsoccercomestomostofmyfriendsandfamily,eventomyself,asahugesurprise.
Itisimportanttonoteatthispointthatdespitethewidespreadadmirationandhypethatexists
worldwidearoundsoccer,itiseasytocriticizeit.Icallmyselfasanopponentoffootballpolitics.
ThelistofargumentsthatIcancomeupwithagainstfootballisextremelylong:Ihighlycriticize
themythandromanticismthatsurroundfamousplayers,whoserveasrolemodelsforavast
numberof(young)peopleandchildrenaroundtheworld;IwholeheartedlyagreewithThaler
(2008:391)who’sargumentsagainstfootballaretargetedagainstsoccerpoliticsingeneral,in
particularthearroganceandignoranceamongpresidents,managerandcommentators;mate-
rialismandcommercialization;glorificationinthemedia;briberyandcorruption;hooliganism
andchauvinism;exploitationforpoliticalgoals;playersasintellectualandrhetoricalanti-heroes.
AndmyskepticismandcriticismhasjustbeenreinforcedbythepublicationofFootballLeaks,
revealingwageandcontractinformationaboutfamousfootballplayers.
97
Mostideas,however,donotjustcomeoutofthinair.Thegeneralideatoinvestigatemetaphor-
icalexpressionsinfootballdiscoursecametomein2014,whenthelastquadrennialFIFAWorld
Cupformen’snationalfootballteamstookplaceinBrazil.Duringthattime,Iwas,asanassistant,
partoftheorganizationteamoftheworkshopentitled“Outsidetheclause:formandfunction
ofExtra-clausalconstituents”thattookplaceattheUniversityofViennaattheDepartmentof
Englishon July5,2014.On thisparticularday, the footballmatches that tookplace inBrazil
determinedtheteamsthatwouldthenmoveintothesemifinaloftheworldchampionship.So,
aftertheworkshop,not justmembersoftheorganizationcommitteebutalsoparticipantsof
theworkshopgot together towatch thequarter-final.Topass the timeduring thehalf-time
break one of us, unfortunately I do not recall who exactly, showed a short video entitled
“Fußballfloskelnwörtlichgenommen”thatwasproducedforachildren’sprogramcalled“Die
SendungmitderMaus”airedonWDR,aGermanpublic-broadcastinginstitution.Thevideocan
be accessed from http://www1.wdr.de/kinder/video-fussballfloskeln-woertlich-genommen-
100.htmlaswellasfromYouTube.DieMauerdirigierenordenBallunterdieLattenageln,are
wellestablishedGermanphrasesevenwell-knownfootballcommentatorsandmatchreporters
usetodescribetheprocessesthathappenonthefieldduringafootballmatch,asillustratedin
example(28a-b):
(28) a. GrabowskidirigiertdieMauerderEintracht,diederMSVjedochmiteinemkurzaus-geführtenFreistoßumgeht.
b. MartinHoßmangwollteesdannwohlzuschönodergenaumachenunddenBallun-terdieLattenageln,dochertrafdieLatte,vonwoderBallvordieTorliniefielundwiederinsFeldsprang.
Thevideoinquestionshowswhathappenswhensuchphrasesaretakenliterallyandtheout-
come,Imustadmit,isextremelyentertaining.Infact,itamusedmegreatlyandthisiswhere
theideaofdoingresearchonmetaphorsinfootballdiscourseformysecondandpresumably
lastdiplomathesisoriginates.Furthermore,itforgesalinkbetweenthetwosubjectsIamstud-
yingtobecomeateacher,i.e.PhysicalEducationandEnglish.
98
Appendix3:CurriculumVitae
MIRIAMSOLTÉSZ
AUSBILDUNG
UniversitätWien
LehramtsstudiumUFBewegungundSportUFEnglisch 2011–2017LinguistischeDiplomarbeitamInstitutfürAnglistikundAmerikanistikmitdemTitelMetaphorswekickby:acomparativestudyofEnglishandGermanmetaphorsinfootballdiscourseBetreuer:Univ.-Prof.PDMag.Dr.GuntherKaltenböck,M.A.
UniversitätWien 2006–2013
DiplomstudiumAnglistikundAmerikanistik,SpezialisierungaufLanguageTeachingLinguistischeDiplomarbeitamInstitutfürAnglistikundAmerikanistikmitdemTitelProgressiveThinking:AnalyzingtheProgressiveAspectanditsacquisitionbyEFLlearnersBetreuerin:Univ.-Prof.Dr.M.EvelienKeizerAbschluss:Maga.phil.
SymmediaAkademiefürGestaltung,Bielefeld(D) 2005–2006
EinjährigerLehrgangimBereichFotografie
HöhereLehranstaltfürwirtschaftlicheBerufe,Rankweil 1999–2004
SchwerpunktFremdsprachen(Englisch,Französisch,Spanisch),Rechnungswesen,Buchhaltung,Betriebswirtschaft,KochenundServieren.AbschlussmitgutemErfolg.
BERUFSERFAHRUNG
UniversitätWien seitSept.2015
StudienassistentinamInstitutfürSportwissenschaftinderAbteilungBewegungs-undSportpädagogikfürUniv.Prof.Dr.MichaelKolb.BetreuungderAbteilungs-homepage,AdministrativeundorganisatorischeTätigkeiten,Übersetzungs-arbeiten,
PhönixRealgymnasium,1100Wien Sept.2012–Aug.2014
Englischlehrerinfür:GegenstandsbezogenesLernen(IndividuellesLernenmitLernplänen)undFörderkurse
UniversitätWien Feb.–Juli20
StudienassistentinamInstitutfürAnglistik&AmerikanistikfürUniv.-Prof.Dr.M.EvelienKeizer.AdministrativeundorganisatorischeTätigkeiten,KoordinationundOrganisationvonVeranstaltungen(zBWorkshopzumThema:TheLexiconinFunctionalDiscourseGrammar,5.-6.Septemper2013),BetreuungundAktualisierungdesLiteraturverwaltungsprogrammsCitavi.KorrekturundBenotungderPrüfungenderVorlesungIntroductiontotheStudyofLanguage2
99
PROJEKTERFAHRUNGundEXTRACURRICULÄREERFAHRUNGEN
Konferenz:ÖSKL 16.–18.Nov.2012
MitglieddesOrganisationsteamssowiePräsentationmeinerDiplomarbeitbeider5.ÖsterreichischenStudierenden-KonferenzderLinguistik.Zuständigkeitsbereiche:GesamtorganisationundKoordinationderKonferenz(ErstellungundBetreuungderHomepage,Sponsoren,Programmerstellung,etc.)
Dopingprävention März–Sept.2012
Betreuung,KoordinationundOrganisationeinesProjektdesFachdidaktikzentrums„BewegungundSport“unterderLeitungvonAo.Univ.-Prof.MMag.Dr.KonradKleinerinZusammenarbeitmitderNADAAustriaunterderLeitungvonDavidMüllerzuDopingpräventionalspädagogisch-didaktischesInterventionskonzeptmitdemTitel„FairzumKörper.FairimSport.“DabeiwurdenUnterrichtsmaterialienerstelltundmodularpräsentiert,sowieWorkshopszumThemageplant,gestaltetunddurchgeführt.
ERFOLG
Auszeichnung
StudentAward2010fürhervorragendeakademischeLeistungenderAnglistikWienfüreinelinguistischeSe-minararbeitmitdemTitel„FunctionsoflikeinEnglishutterances“imZugedesSeminars“Hedgingandbeingvague”imWS2009/2010beiMag.Dr.GuntherKaltenböck,M.A.
Wien,am31.Mai2017