3. RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN
3.3. Resultados de las pruebas de integridad
In their paper called “Discourse metaphors”, Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich argue that
discourse metaphors are not derived from the experientially-grounded primary metaphors, but that they are congenial with the cultures in which they are employed.
The authors define discourse metaphor as “a relatively stable metaphorical projection that functions as a key framing device within a particular discourse over a certain
33
Among the best-known blending theorists, one should mention Coulson (2000) and Coulson/Oakley (2000).
period of time” (Zinken et. al. 2008: 363). Essentially, discourse metaphors are
considered as emerging in a sociocultural context and as being prone to diachronic change, i.e. they are socioculturally situated.
The notion of the situatedness of metaphors, introduced by Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich, is helpful when explaining the propagation of metaphors across discourses and the degree of sharedness. In order to explain how the mechanism of sharedness and variation works, I distinguish between two types of European
discourse: a “master“, or pan-European discourse, and individual European discourses. I shall use the term master or pan-European discourse interchangeably to refer to a discourse that has its origins in the documents on the EU that constituted
the beginnings of this institution (e.g. Churchill’s metaphor “European family of nations”). This discourse serves as a defining framework and as a medium of communication at a supranational level. It has been referred to as EU jargon or Euro- speak.
The pan-European discourse as employed in the supranational institutions of the EU (European Commission, The European Council, The European Parliament, etc.) is instantiated in different ways according to the geopolitical and cultural environment. Thus, the main difference is that the pan-EU discourse is (ideally) transnational and transcultural, whereas the EU discourses are socially and culturally situated. The pan-European discourse defined as unbound by national frontiers is an abstraction used for definitional purposes. The existence of the EU master discourse
explains the occurrence of shared metaphors, which I call “European metaphors”.
Conversely, if one acknowledges the existence of culturally situated and locally adapted EU discourses, metaphor variance can be explained by means of variant cultural models. Nonetheless, even within the category of local EU discourses, overlapping cannot be entirely excluded, as core elements (values, convictions, etc.) might be a component of several cultures or histories and, therefore, not unique (for example, colonialism, island, etc.). The figure below roughly indicates the positioning of the EU master discourse in relation to the national (EU) discourses:
As indicated in the figure above, the national level is the site where both types of variation (overt and covert) occur. Let us start with the mechanism of covert variation: apparently the same metaphors (same source, same target) as in the master EU discourse are used, but they are decoded via cultural schemata or exemplars, so that misunderstandings might arise. This will be referred to as covert variation; this type of variation becomes evident at the decoding level. For the sake of clarity, consider the example of a politician, delivering a speech in a foreign country. The politician might make use of source domains that are neutral in his country and thus the metaphors are likely to be neutral in his own national discourse, but might constitute a source of conflict and may lead to misunderstandings when intended for a foreign audience (see also Mikhail Gorbachev’s legendary example of the
“common European house”, discussed in section 13.2.2., under THE EU IS A HOUSE). In contrast, if at the national level cultural schemas that do not coincide with the ones in the master discourse are used, they tend to serve as source domains for novel metaphors, which are likely to occur in specific national discourse. Such cases will be referred to as overt variation; this type of variation is manifest both at the encoding level (production) and at the decoding level (reception). Let us take the
politician’s example again: a clever politician might select certain domains that are of national interest for his particular foreign audience in order to make his metaphors more appealing and his speech more persuasive in that country; in other words, overt variation is activated at the level of production. Obviously, if the same metaphors are
employed in a speech intended for a different audience, variation at the level of reception is most likely to occur. A local politician is also likely to select topics of national interest for this country in order to render his metaphors more persuasive to his target audience. Unlike the foreign politician, he/she is supposed to share the conceptual mind-map of the target audience and thus to be able to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. These cases of variation will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 13, “Overt and covert variation – European vs. nation-
specific metaphors”.
In this chapter I have reviewed the main tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and introduced some new, emerging perspective on the study of metaphor. It is important to recapitulate the main arguments that will be also guiding the analysis undertaken in the empirical part:
· Metaphor is not simply a linguistic phenomenon, but a conceptual
one.
· As language, thought and culture are intertwined, metaphors are most
genuinely analysed within a cultural framework.
· The role of metaphors is powerful in carving concepts and thus
shaping our thoughts.
It is especially the third argument that will be further elaborated in the next chapter, dedicated to the conceptual metaphor from the perspective of political discourse.