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