Home A cross-cultural gender analysis of the pragmatic functions of conceptual metaphor in Spanish and English newspapers
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A cross-cultural gender analysis of the pragmatic functions of conceptual metaphor in Spanish and English newspapers

  • Lorena Pérez-Hernández

    Lorena Pérez-Hernández, PhD, works as a permanent associate professor at the University of La Rioja (Spain) from 2001. She has published over thirty papers and book chapters in national and international venues, including high-impact journals like Journal of Pragmatics, Applied Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics, and several book series by John Benjamins. She has recently co-edited the book Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (Benjamins Current Topics, 56; John Benjamins). She is also an active linguistics consultant for the branding and naming company Lexicon Branding Co. (Sausalito, CA, USA).

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: August 24, 2016

Abstract

Most gender studies performed from a cognitive perspective focus on the description of metaphors underlying the conceptualization of men and women in different cultures. Little attention has been paid so far to gender-related aspects of the pragmatic uses of conceptual metaphors. This paper analyzes a corpus of opinion columns by two groups of contemporary Spanish and English journalists (male versus female journalists) with a view to identifying the pragmatic functions of the cognitive metaphors found in their discourse. Such metaphors have turned out to act as either mitigating or intensifying devices of the writers’ claims. From a gender perspective, a tendency has been observed for male journalists to use conceptual metaphors in order to intensify axiologically negative opinions or descriptions, while female journalists tend to make use of them for the mitigation of negative descriptions. In both cases, metaphor is also used for the creation of humor, but while male journalists do so by means of downgrading others, female journalists repeatedly play themselves down in an attempt to gain the readers’ sympathy through laughter. These general tendencies have been found to be largely modulated by culture-specific pragmatic factors (i. e. preference for indirectness) and maxims (i. e. Modesty and Approbation).

About the author

Lorena Pérez-Hernández

Lorena Pérez-Hernández, PhD, works as a permanent associate professor at the University of La Rioja (Spain) from 2001. She has published over thirty papers and book chapters in national and international venues, including high-impact journals like Journal of Pragmatics, Applied Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics, and several book series by John Benjamins. She has recently co-edited the book Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (Benjamins Current Topics, 56; John Benjamins). She is also an active linguistics consultant for the branding and naming company Lexicon Branding Co. (Sausalito, CA, USA).

Corpus

El País. 2005–2014. http://www.elpais.es

XL Semanal. 2005–2014. http://www.xlsemanal.com

The Guardian. 2005–2014. http://www.theguardian.com

The Observer. 2005–2014. http://www.observer.theguardian.com

References

Abramo, Joseph M. 2011. Gender differences in the popular music compositions of high school students. Music Education Research International 5. 1–11.10.1177/0022429410396095Search in Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11. 131–146.10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: C.U.P.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2012. Shattering the Bell Jar: Metaphor, gender, and depression. Metaphor and Symbol 27(3). 199–216.10.1080/10926488.2012.665796Search in Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 2004. Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Geluykens, Ronald & Holger Limberg. 2012. Gender variation, indirectness, and preference organization in threat responses. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 1–12.Search in Google Scholar

Hines, Caitlin. 2000. Rebaking the Pie: The ‘WOMAN AS DESSERT’ Metaphor. In Mary Bucholtz, A. Liang & Laurel A. Sutton (eds.), Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse, 145–162. Oxford: O.U.P.Search in Google Scholar

Hiraga, Masako K. 1991. Metaphors Japanese women live by. In Anne Pauwels & Joanne Winter (eds.), Working papers on language, gender, and sexism. General issue on women and language 1(1). Clayton, Victoria: Monash U.P.S.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Juanhong, Lu. 2012. The touch metaphors: A cognitive and corpus-based study. Polyglossia 22. 47–57.Search in Google Scholar

Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Hampshire: Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511286Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Wei. 2009. Different communication rules between the English and Chinese greetings. Asian Culture and History 1(2). 72–74.10.5539/ach.v1n2p72Search in Google Scholar

Maalej, Zouhair. 1999. Of animals, foods, objects, and plants, or how women are conceptualized: A cross-cultural perspective. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Tunis I.Search in Google Scholar

Miettinen, Hanna & Greg Watson. 2013. ‘Sort of’ in British women’s and men’s speech. English Language Teaching 6(3). 108–115.10.5539/elt.v6n3p108Search in Google Scholar

Mills, A. J. 2002. Studying the gendering of organizations culture over time: concerns, issues and strategies. Gender, Work & Organization 9(3). 286–307.10.1111/1468-0432.00161Search in Google Scholar

Morán, Carmen. 2004. Elvira Lindo habla de humor, sexo y talante. Revista de Agosto. Tinto de Verano. 03-08-2004. El País.Search in Google Scholar

Nilsen, A. P. 1996. Of ladybugs and billy goats: What animal species names tell about human perception of gender. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11(4). 257–271.10.1207/s15327868ms1104_2Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernandez, Lorena. 1997. A cognitive analysis of Paul Bowles’ The Sheltering Sky. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 612. 259–278.Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernandez, Lorena. 2011. Cognitive tools for successful branding. Applied Linguistics 32(4). 369–388.10.1093/applin/amr004Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2013a. Approaching the utopia of a global brand: the relevance of image-schemas as multimodal resources for the branding industry. In María Pilar Sanz (ed.), Special Issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics. “Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics” 11(2). 285–302.Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2013b. A Pragmatic-Cognitive Approach to Brand Names: a Case Study of Rioja Wine Brands. Names. A Journal of Onomastics. 61(1). 33–46.10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000038Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernandez, Lorena. 2014. Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural comercial communication. Cognitive Linguistics 25(2). 203–247.10.1515/cog-2014-0015Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2016. The role of mitigation and strengthening cognitive operations in brand names design: a case study of Spanish and American wine brands. Social Semiotics 26(2). 128–150.10.1080/10350330.2015.1080015Search in Google Scholar

Ponterotto, Diane. 2003. The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894677.283Search in Google Scholar

Schalk, Sami. 2013. Metaphorically speaking: Ableist metaphors in feminist writing. Disability Studies Quarterly 33(4). 23–45.10.18061/dsq.v33i4.3874Search in Google Scholar

Schmitt, Rudolf. 2009. Metaphor analysis and the construction of gender. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10(2). 1–37.Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Silaski, Nadezda. 2012. Metaphors and ideology. Gendered metaphors in economic discourse. Gender Studies 11. 207–219.10.2478/v10320-012-0019-4Search in Google Scholar

Stirling, Lesley. 1987. Language and gender in Australian Newspapers. In Anne Pauwels (ed.), Women and language in Australian and New Zealand society, 108–128. Sydney: A.P.P.Search in Google Scholar

Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You just don’t understand – women and men in conversation. London: Virago.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tercedor Sánchez, Maribel, López Rodríguez, Clara Inés, Márquez Linares, Carlos & Pamela Faber. 2012. Metaphor and metonymy in specialized language. In Pamela Faber (ed.), A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language, 33–72. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-8-24
Published in Print: 2016-9-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 29.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2016-0023/html
Scroll to top button