Abstract
Manuela Romano begins her introduction to the edited volume Metaphor in Socio-Political Contexts by asking ‘why have social-political metaphorical analyses experienced such an exponential growth in the last years?’ (2). The case studies in the volume reflect the progress made since Lakoff and Johnson’s seminal work nearly 50 years ago and highlight current research on metaphor as ‘a powerful ideological weapon for social action and transformation’ (2). At the same time, the edited collection serves as a testimonial to the challenge of determining topicality in the sea of existing metaphor research. One approach is, as Romano suggests, to ‘merge’ theoretical concepts and methodological tools from Multimodal/Social Media CDA, Corpus Linguistics and Critical Media Studies, combining qualitative with quantitative analyses (7–10). The book demonstrates how integrating several approaches to mono- and multimodal data analysis can deepen our understanding of discoursal roles and the implications of metaphoric framings. In an effort to broaden its perspective, the book moves beyond English and incorporates data from Spain, Serbia and China, as well as multimodal data from Poland, France and other countries. Finally, the edited collection engages with some of the most prominent discourses from a critical perspective (cf. Ahmed et al., 2024), while also including other less explored areas, such as analyses of sculptures and murals.
The book is organized into three sections. Section 1 on ‘Construing reality through metaphor’ begins with a chapter by Maria-Josep Cuenca and Manuela Romano that ‘intends to bridge an existing gap in the literature’ (25) by examining the ‘figurative mechanisms’ (32) —types of conceptual mappings between source and target domains— underlying metaphors and similes in COVID-19 discourse. The authors engage with the debate on whether metaphors and similes are equivalent by analyzing cognitive mappings and elaborations in Spanish digital media. Cuenca and Romano argue that, while both are related rhetorical tools, metaphors and similes differ in real communicative contexts. The findings highlight the role of conventionalization and aptness in the choice of figurative device. For example, the most conventionalized source domains are more likely to appear in both simile and metaphor form (45). Yet, when the source is less apt, the metaphors and similes require elaboration to clarify the mappings, as in the example of soccer metaphor on page 46.
In their chapter, Laura Filardo-Llamas and Alba Roldán-García investigate the construction of group and individual gender identities on social media through metaphorical and metonymic expressions, as well as cultural frames. To study the effects of frame activations in the discursive construction of gender, the authors base their analysis on Wenger’s ‘community of practice’ and Zappavigna’s ‘ambient affiliation’. Nevertheless, despite their definition of cultural frames, the concept remains somewhat vague, making the examples and discussion somewhat ambiguous.
Veronika Koller contributes to the ongoing discussion of refugee representation in the media. Building on earlier research, her chapter examines the metaphorical framing of Ukrainian refugees in the British press. By situating qualitative findings within existing literature, the chapter illustrates how metaphoric scenarios reveal underlying representations of social actors and ideologies in right- and left-wing broadsheets and tabloids. Koller points out that
In their analysis of (formerly Twitter) X posts, Silvia Peterssen and Augusto Soares da Silva rely on both qualitative and quantitative methods, applying insights from Corpus Linguistics, CDA and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. The chapter contributes to discussions about, and warns against, far-right populist ideologies that have gained popularity over the past decade. It also points to the increasing role of social media in influencing public opinion. Particularly, the authors analyze ‘the metaphorical reproduction of polarization in the Twitter discourses’ (108) of Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox Party, as well as former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. The study shows how the speaker’s position and their pragmatic goal influence the choice of verbal/discursive strategies that can contribute to polarization.
Tatjana Đurović and Nadežda Silaški analyze metaphors used in Serbian mass media to encourage vaccination. The chapter focuses on the role of metaphors in scientific knowledge transmission and their potential to bring specialized knowledge to the general public. The authors claim to have analyzed verbal metaphors by using a ‘discourse-oriented approach’ (143), rather than the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) developed by the Pragglejaz Group. However, the outcomes of this approach remain ambiguous, given the absence of a comprehensive analytical summary. The distinction between explanatory and persuasive metaphors also remains fuzzy, as the authors rely primarily on intuition (143) without providing clear criteria for categorization, although they do acknowledge the overlap and tentativeness of this division. Neither a model nor a list of language- or culture-specific features of pro-vaccination metaphors in Serbian is derived from the analysis, which is a clear shortcoming.
Section II on ‘Contesting the world through metaphor’ opens with Andreas Musolff’s chapter ‘War metaphors and conspiracy theories.’ As debate continues regarding the drawbacks and dangers of using war metaphors in COVID-19 discourse, Musolff contributes further evidence supporting the criticism of such metaphorical framings. In fact, he shows how easily conspiracy theory narratives can ‘make the most of the war-scenario […] encouraging followers to engage in violent activism’ (169). Building on the concept of metaphor scenario as ‘an implicit mini-story that includes a desirable outcome’ (161), Musolff traces the evolution or ‘weaponization’ (171) of the war metaphor. He concludes that COVID-related war scenarios have merged with various conspiracy theories into a super-scenario, now functioning as ‘an exemplary story with a specific (default) outcome’ (171) whose adepts use to legitimize their (often) violent behavior.
M. Dolores Porto looks at how ‘it is possible to reframe issues by changing the metaphors’ (199). The author discusses
Dennis Tay, Ying Jin and Yating Yu study metaphor ‘survivability’ (223) by monitoring how metaphors develop in users’ replies to Hubei Red Cross Foundation posts on the Chinese social platform Weibo. The authors track metaphor lifespan based on the number of replies in which they feature (210). The detailed methodology section in this chapter guides readers through the process of data collection and sampling, content analysis (including coding and reliability testing) as well as determining the survival time of metaphors.
Roberto Asenjo and María Muelas-Gil’s chapter opens the last section ‘Performing ideology through multimodal metaphor.’ A case study on female representation in the murals of two major Northern Ireland cities illustrates how to apply the Visual Metaphor Identification Procedure (VISMIP) model to analyze monomodal (visual) or multimodal metaphorical content. The authors show how the Republican-Loyalist conflict is framed as both ‘shared physical and temporal background’ and ‘final goal (defeating the opponent and defending one’s side)’ (244). Although the scholars acknowledge the limited corpus size, their analysis demonstrates how framing influences the source domains of primary metaphors in the portrayal of women. The results also invite reflection on the role(s) of primary metaphors within compound ones.
Charles Forceville engages in an ongoing debate with Šorm and Steen (2018) regarding multimodal metaphor identification. The author highlights the limitations of VISMIP and proclaims that ‘there simply is no failsafe procedure to decide [if] a certain picture constitutes, or contains, a metaphor’ (265; italics in original). While MIP, and its extended version MIPVU, have become the standard in metaphor identification —four papers reference it in the volume— VISMIP remains in the testing phase (e.g., see Asenjo and Muelas-Gil’s chapter). While Forceville does not propose a detailed step-by-step alternative, he does elucidate the methods employed in his earlier co-authored works and offers several practical recommendations.
Elżbieta Górska’s chapter analyzes Jerzy Kalina’s sculpture ‘Monument of an Anonymous Passer-by’ in Wrocław, Poland. Górska focuses on image-schemas underlying the composition of the artwork. The chapter shows how visual cues trigger metaphorical interpretations of the work of art in passers-by. The interviews conducted by the author also suggest that the mechanism of recontextualization ‘drives’ metaphorical creativity in viewers (302).
The volume ends with a chapter by Christopher Hart. The author zeroes in on cognitive linguistic approaches to framing in general and metaphorical framing in particular, with emphasis on the
Overall, this edited volume serves as a valuable resource for scholars and students in linguistics and cultural, media and political studies, particularly those interested in metaphor production, interpretation and cognitive processes. On a more critical note, the volume only tentatively suggests potential directions for advancing metaphor studies, such as merging theoretical perspectives from disciplines, questioning the existing methodological procedures or calling for more empirical research. However, many of the case studies in the book might help budding researchers navigate methodological procedures in metaphor-in-discourse analysis. The case studies engage with a broad spectrum of socially significant issues ranging from ideologies and conspiracy theories to gender identities and social resistance. As demonstrated across several chapters, these analyses may carry significant implications for policymaking, ethical frameworks and broader societal governance practices.