Koller 2005 (Discourse and Society)

[Linnea Micciulla]

Hi everyone,

I hope you've had a chance to read this month's article; if not, I highly
recommend it.  The first couple of sections make an excellent case for the
important role metaphor can/should play in CDA: "Metaphor [...] proves to be
an interface between cognitive structures underlying a discourse, on the one
hand, and the ideology permeating it, on the other hand." (p. 206). 

I wanted to pose a few questions that came to me during my reading.  I
apologize in advance for rambling on a bit  - and I am looking forward to
hearing your thoughts!

1) Continuing from page 206: "What is more, their [metaphors'] function of
highlighting and hiding particular semantic features makes it possible to
trace ideologically vested choices in the generation and usage of complex
metaphors."  I am somewhat unclear on what mechanisms are used to
"highlight" or "hide" semantic features.  The example spanning pp 212-213,
'They (mergers) are, like second marriages, a triumph of hope over
experience' "spells out the semantic features transferred" according to the
text - I assume that means 'hope', 'experience' and the proposition 'hope
triumphs over experience' are the features transferred.  The semantic
feature 'step-children' could be said to be hidden, I suppose, since it is
not explicitly mentioned. Does highlighting and hiding refer to only
explicit mentions/non-mentions, or can it be more subtle than that?

2) I also wondered about how to distinguish between conventional/novel
metaphors.  From p. 214: "...the conventional 'marriages' [...] extended to
novel conceptualizations such as 'liaisons'..." To me, 'liaison' is more
conventional than 'marriage' - I would actually not consider 'liaison' to be
metaphorical when used to mean 'link' between two businesses.  In Jonathan
Charteris-Black's "Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis" he makes
the point that metaphor may be better thought of as relative rather than
absolute, since different individuals may have different notions about
whether an expression is literal or metaphorical.   

3) I also wondered about the framework for determining what combinations
constitute a 'simple cluster' vs. a 'hybrid'.  FIGHTING, MATING and FEEDING
are given as members of the EVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE cluster, but HUNTING and
HEAT combine with these to form a 'hybrid'.  I'm not sure why HUNTING is not
a member of the original cluster - capturing one's food is just a basic to
survival as eating it, I would think. 

In general, I agree that metaphor is extraordinarily important to CDA, and I
was particularly interested in the discussion of the impact of metaphors on
mental models, and "how far individuals can actually resist cognitive and
hence discursive control" (p. 219).  Certainly, there is some very
interesting psycholinguistic work to be done in that area.  

Best,
Linnea