Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ibérica
ISSN: 1139-7241
Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines
Específicos
España
Skorcynska, Hanna
Metaphor in scientific business journals and business periodicals: an example of the scientific
discourse popularisation
Ibérica, núm. 3, 2001, pp. 43-60
Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos
Cádiz, España
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=287026294004
How to cite
Complete issue
More information about this article
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org
Scientific Information System
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
Metaphor in scientific business journalsand business periodicals: an example ofthe scientific discourse popularisation
Hanna SkorcynskaUniversitat Politeeniea de Valencia
Abstract
Studies of HltlaplJ{)r have InrgtIJfocused {)lJ iflfirmalftahfrt1 and meaning in diJJtrtnt!YJ>e1 ofspohn and written locll. "[/;il ;slo the exclusion of a rontrdJhve anaIYsi! 0/ mefnpbor t'flrialion
in two 1yptJ oj discourse and ils implicatiOn! Jor the proem oj flJe scientific discountpopularisoh'on. An attempt is made in this slllt!Y 10 dum'be metaphor variation at three discourJe
kt'tls: conCiptual, IinguiJlic and communJtohtJt in two corpora: one based on !CIenlific businessjournals and the ollxr; on businmperiodimis. &1#111 obtained indimle that metaphor t'onation
i1 apart of the popularisation proem and comifJOnds to ils three charaderil!icl: Iimplijicotion,the liSt oj infOrmal tone and reformulation, beJidu its empkJymenl 01 a no"ohvt duic!.
Key Words: Metaphor, scientijic discourse, populariJed diuoNne
Introduction
Metaphor has become a highly attractive field of study in the twentieth century, andespecially over the past twenty years. The extensive bibliography written on the subjectshows twO main approaches to the study of metaphor (Ortony, 1993): nonconstructivise and constructivise, which come from two distinctive doctrines oftwentieth-century Western philosophy, positivism and relativism, showing differentattitudes towards literal and non-literal language. In the non-constructivist approach,based on the positivist tradition, metaphor is studied exclusively as a phenomenon oflanguage. It is considered to be a trope, an example of non-literal language and isdefined in terms of violations of linguistic rules. Metaphors are analysed at sentencelevel, as individual items, independent of others. The constructivist approach, on theother hand, drawing upon relativism, eliminates the distinction between the literal andnon-literal, and views metaphor as instrumental in constructing reality. Metaphors are
18~RIC'" 3 (2(1(1,]:.~ 43
,
argutd here to be symptomatic of underlying systems or metaphoric models, and thus,are considered as phenomena of both language and thought. This approach hasproductd numerous theories' conwning metaphor description, processing andproduction over the last twO decades. The common feature of all these contributionsis the cognitive view of metaphor, which in many c.ases is suppontd by recentdevelopments in psychology and language processing.
The current studies of metaphor within the field of applied linguistia (Cameron andLow. 1999) take a step back from the 'strong' cognitive approach of the 19805 in orderto re<:stablish a language focus in metaphor research. The narrow scope of the cognitiveview of metaphor has -ltd to an unwarranttd lack of interest in the lattg,ttagt ofmetaphor" (Cameron, 1999: 11). h, then, needs to be studitd closer without rejecting itscognitive value. The current studies of metaphor take two directions: on the one hand,there is a strong interest in the methodology of metaphor research, for instanc~ withan attempt to establish a taxonomy ofdescription levels (Steen, 1999), and on the other,there are examples ofapplied studies, where metaphor has been analysed with referen~
to specific COntexts, such as spoken discourse (Cameron, 1999), academic discourse(Low, 1999), classroom interaction (Cortazzi and Jin, 1999), or the discourse ofchronicilln'" (G_ 1999).
The studies of scientific discourse popularisation are more limited in number, butthey cover various approaches, such as the sociological (Karpf, 1988), the role ofmass media (Taylor, 1975; Jones tlol., 1978), or the linguistic with special interestin syntax and vocabulary, on the one hand, (Funkhouser y Macoby, 1970; Kahn,1983; Dubois, 1986; Adams-Smith, I987a,b; Varantola, 1987), and discourseorganisation, on the other, (Nwogu, 1991; Jacobi, 1994).
The theoretical framework
The description of metaphor change in scientific business journals and businessperiodicals is based on Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) comprehensive view ofmetaphor as a phenomenon of thought and language and on Steen's (1999)analytical framework for the account of metaphor features at the conceptual,linguistic and communicative levels.
The metaphor has been defined -in LakofPs (1993) terms- as a mapping across domains,where each mapping is a set of omological correspondences between entities in a sourcedomain and those in a target one. In other words, and following Burke's (1945: 503)classical definition, metaphor has been considered as "a device for seeing something interms of something else". The notions of linguistic and conceptual metaphors have beenused to distinguish between text-surface metaphors and the underlying 'metaphoricalconcepts', which partially build up our conceptual system' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).
In Steen's conceptual level of metaphor description, metaphor is viewed as aproposition, which involves "idea units or thought" (Steen, 1999: 85). The analysis ofmetaphor involves the use of two traditional notions: Topic and Vehicle·. Topic,according to Steen (1999: 85), refers to "the literal entity in the world of the text aboutwhich something is predicated in a figurative manner" or, to which a non-literalpredicate is attached. This figurative predicate is called the Vehicle. This type ofmetaphor analysis implies a description of isolated sentence-length metaphors, whichmay obscure the existence of larger structures or networks, which underlie all types ofdiscourse. This is why Cameron (1999) insists that these types of structure should bedescribed at differem levels', depending on the corpus available. The level which is ofrelevance to this study confines the analysis of Vehicle networks to spKific discoursecommunities, where related Vehicles may develop an extended metaphor across severalaspem of the Topic. Another element in the conceptual level of analysis -the distinctionbetween 'implicit' and 'explicit' metaphors- also focuses on metaphor as a discoursestructuring element. Implicit metaphors are those in which the literal referent crossesthe boundary of the sentence' and appears in the co-text or context of a given text.Explicit metaphors, on the other hand, are characterised by the inclusion of the literalreferem in the semence. Implicit metaphors require more inferencing betweensentences, or between sentence and context, in comparison with explicit metaphors.
The linguistic level of metaphor analysis involves a different analysis of its structure,based on the notions of Focus and Frame'. Steen accommodates this concept ofmetaphor -originally stemming from the idea of metaphor as a sentence- to thediscourse view of metaphor. Focus is seen as a semantically odd element in a linguisticexpression, while Frame is considered a background against which the Focus standsout. The contrast between Focus and Frame in explicit metaphors is semantic.However, in the case of implicit metaphors it is of pragmatic nature, since the readermust go beyond the sentence to the level of text or even to his own knowledge of the
IstRICA 312001/: 43-50 45
•
.-world 10 achi~r a cohrrrnt discourse repr~n1ation. The linguistic I~el of analysis
allows for the identification of the laical cat~ories employed to aprm the Focus.
The communicative le.rd ofanalysis is based on the vi~ of metaphor as an utterana
(spoken or written). According 10 St«n (1999: 85): "This particular angle on thefunction ofapressions in discourse is esstntially communicativt; it involves speakershaving particular things in mind th'lI th(}' want to talk or write about 10 otherspeakers". Metaphor is, then, no longer a proposition, which involves idea units orthought. Here the notions ofTopic and Vehicle correspond res~vdy to the literal
entity in the tat and to a non-literal Comment made about it. What distinguishesthe communicative approach from the concqnual is that nOI alllilmi referents in ametaphorical proposition are Tapics in a metaphorical utterance-.
The approach to the popularisation of the scientific discourse adoptro in this studydraws upon Jacobi's (1994) typology and description of thret ~ of discourse:primary scientific discourse, discourse written for didactic purposes and for nonformal scientific-«lucational purposes. The transformation from the first to the thirdtype of discourse is considerro to be the ca.se of scientific discourse popularisation,which is characterised by five main features: (I) selection of a different focus oncontent; (2) simplifications and cuttings; (3) use of evtryday language and informaltone; (4) inductive text structure; (5) reformulation of specialist terms. Metaphor isconsiderro here as one of the reformulation techniquesll
•
The goals of this study
In vi~ of the current situation in metaphor research and of the main directions in theinvestigation ofdiscourse popularisation, this study aims to produce the description ofmetaphor variation in twO types of business discourse, scientific and popular, and thento link the distinctive features of this variation to the process of scientific discoursepopularisation. The overall objective of this analysis is to suggest in what ways thechanges revealro may have been caused by the transformation undergone.
AI the conceptual level of metaphor analysis, this study attempts to identify vehiclenetworks. Th~ may help define the conventional conceptual mappings underlyingthe scientific and popularised business discourse. In other words, th~ may allow foran identification of the target conctptual domains brought up to talk about business.
The analysis at the linguistic level aims at identifYing the linguistic resources usedto produce metaphors. The main interest in this study lies in the classification ofthe syntactic structures used to produce metaphors, that is, in distinguishing mainlybetween phrase and sentence metaphors. Any significant variation at the syntacticand lexical level could be considered as symptomatic of the popularisation processtaking place. Moreover, this analysis seeks to determine whether the metaphors usedin both types of business discourse are nominal or verbal'l. This question has beenraised by a recent criticism made about metaphor literature and its persistence inperpetuating the myth of the nominal linguistic metaphor as the most common ortypical (Cameron, 1999).
At the communiC:Hive level, the interpret2tion of metaphors in terms of TopicComment relation is thought to contribute to enlightening metaphor textualfunctions. These, in turn, will help define the purposes for which non-literalComments are systematically made about a particular Topic. The results of thisanalysis are subject to certain limitations produced by the researcher's owninterpretation of metaphors and the source texts, yet they may shed some light onmetaphor communicative features.
Corpus and methodology
Two corpora have been analysed for this study. The first consists of 90,207 words andis based on twelve articles published in four scientific business journals: journal 0/WorM BUDReu, journal of Management Studies, jour1/alof International BUJineu SluditJ, andManagement Accounting &search, over a two-year period from 1997 to 1998. The secondcorpus consists of 43,654 words and is based on twenty-nine articles published in1996 in three widely known business periodicals: The Economul, Busineu IPrtk andFortune. The decision on the sources from which to select metaphors was based on theneed to ensure balance and representation of a range of scientific and popularisedbusiness writing pieces. All the articles vary in content, discussing different businessissues or reporting business news over different periods of time.
We have deliberately allowed for such an evident difference in length between bothcorpora, since our purpose was to obtain a list of approximately the same number oflinguistic metaphors for each type of discourse. AJ a result, twO collections of about
,
~ighty linguistic m~taphors wm productd: ~ighty-thret in sci~ntific busin~s articl~
and eighty-()ne in busin~ periodicals.Th~ prom:lur~ for th~ selection of metaphors consisted in rading all the articl~,
searching for linguistic metaphors and id~ntifying th~m according 10 lakofPsdefinition (1993) m~ntioned previously. Although reading texts and searching formetaphors allows for human ~rrors, this method has turned OUI to be th~ onlypossibl~ way of collecting the corpus for this sludy. No technological 1001, such ascomputer softw.are, d~igned to detect metaphors, has been in\"~nted to dal~.
Results and discussion
ConceplUaI level of melaphor description
The analysis of linguistic metaphors in both corpora has rev-aled some differC'ncesin the concC'ptual structuring of thC' twO types of discourse. The discoufS(' ofscientific journals is grounded in thret main conceptual mappings: business as war,business as sport, and business organisation as an individual. The <'Xamples thatfollow show how diff~rent dements (metaphorical proposition wilh a Topic, i.~.
literal implicil or <'Xplicit referent, and a Vehicle, i.e. non·literal referC'nt) int~raet increating a linguistic mC'taphor. Each linguistic metaphor forms part of a particularconceptual mapping.
a means ofVehicle (V): (is)counterattack
Mapping: Business as war
[i I "Smaller domestic firms, particularly in atomistic industries may effectively befrozen out from this option and can therefore only seek aJnlinistrative protectionas an effective means of counterattack". UOlfrlJIIlof Iflorld IJIIJinm, 32: 2 p. 175)Metaphorical proposition
Topic (1) and Literal Explicit ReferC'nt:(LER): smaller domestic firms in atomisticindustries, administrative prot<'Ction
Mapping: Business as sport
12] "When administrators or political bodies try to ~nfor«' implemC'ntation of newmanag~ment control systems on organizations, various forms of conflicu andgames may be observed in the impl~mentation process·. (Managt11ltnl A«OJlnJing
RLJtQrth, 8: 405, 1997)
Metaphorical propositionT and Literal Implicit Referent (LIR):actions of the various groups involvedin the implementation process
V: (are) games
V: (is) a guru
V: (is) the road to the centre ofthe world: the hole in the skythrough which he can fly upto the highest heaven or theaperture through which he candescend to the underworld
Mapping: Business organization as an individual(31 "A party's reliance on legal mechanisms may decline as an IJV ages, (...)". OOllrnalrf International Business Studies, 29: 1, 1998, p. 182)Metaphorical proposition
T and LER: an IJV V: ages
The discourse of business periodicals is structured through four main mappings:business as war, business as sport, business organization as a machine and as anindividual. If the difference in the number and type of conceptual mappings is notsignificant, the complexity of the target domains involved, point to various submappings, which reveal how metaphors vary from one rype of discourse to another.
In the corpus of scientific journals, the mapping of business organization as anindividual involves three target domains: individual, religion and journey, thus thereare three sub-mappings. The examples below are of religion and journey sub-mappings.
[4J "The guru 'knows the road to the centre of the world: the hole in the sky throughwhich he can fly up to the highest heaven or the aperture through which he candescend to the underworld' (Eliade, 1987, p. 205)" Uoumal rf ManagementStlldies, 35:2, 1988, p. 140).Metaphorical proposition 1
T and LIR; a specialist in managementMetaphorical proposition 2
T and LIR: achievement of a business success
IstRIC... ) (2001): 43«J 49
[51 "Here the organization must make a perilous journey (...)" VOl/rna! of Monogemml
SIJldits, 35: 2, 1988, p. 155).Metaphorical proposition
T and LER: the organization V: must make a perilous journey
The metaphors in the corpus of business periodicals employ a greater variety oftarget domains in their sub-mappings. For instance, in the mapping of business asspon, there are references to games and huming.
[6] "Anyway, as Motorolans are all quick to remind you, they are in this China gamefor the long haul" (Fortune, 27/5/96, p. 42).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: Motorolans V: (are in this) China game forthe long haul
[7] "Four years later he became CEO of RJR Nabisco Holdings, where he stayeduntil a desperate IBM lured him away" (Fortune, 29/4/96, p. 59).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: he, CEO of RJR Nabisco Holdings, V: lured him awaya desperate IBM
The business organization-as-machine mapping includes the sub-mappings of liquidand journey.
[8] "Although Euro Disney is unlikely ever to be the money machine Disneydreamed of, improvements are beginning to come through" (The EronomiJ/, 13/4/96,p. 79).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: Euro Disney V: (is) money machine
[9] "He has pumped tens of millions ofdollars into agribusiness ventures and R&Din investment-starved Chiapas" (BI/Jinm [Peek, 11/3/96, p. 23).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: he, tens of millions of dollars, V: has pumpedagribusiness ventures and R&Din investment-starved Chiapas
50 18~RlC'" 3[2001]: 03-&l
Y: faces rocky stretches in theroad ahead
[lOJ "GAZ still faces rocky stretches in the road ahead, from rising costs of rawmaterials to the drag on productivity from a bloated workforce" (Business IlVttk,27(5(96, p. 18).Metaphorical proposition
T and LER: GAZ, rising costs of rawmaterials. the drag on productivity froma bloated workforce
The mapping of business organization as individual is expanded through domainsof marriage, family and food.
[llj "(...), maybe it wasn't such a good idea for the company to swallow EDS andHughes a decade ago" (Forlunt, 29/4/96, p.39).Metaphorical proposition
T. LER: the company, EDS Y: to swallow
[121 "This once heavenly match may turn out to be the marriage from hell." (BusintJ!
l/7"k, 11(3(96, p. 19).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: this once heavenly match V: the marriage from hell
/131 "Its Venezuelan parent is blasting full-throttle into the U.S." (Business Week,11(3(96, p. 24).Metaphorical proposition
T, DR: Petr6leos de Venezuela V: its Venezuelan parent
(14J "Can tobacco industry now afford to breathe freely once again, unlike itscustomers?" (The EronomiJI, 1/6/96, p. 70).Metaphorical proposition
T, LER: tobacco industry V: breathe
As can be seen in the examples given, the metaphors in business periodicals revealthe existence of conceptual mappings with greater variety of target domains.
IatRIC" 3 (2001]: 4J..6O 51
The analysis of metaphors from the point of view of Topic explicitness orimplicitness (location in or outside the sentence) has given the following results:seventy-six per cent of all metaphors are explicit in the corpus of scientific articles,while eighty-six per cent are explicit in business periodicals. In other words, thenumber ofexplicit metaphors is slightly higher (by ten per cent) in periodicals thanin journals. .
In view of these results, it seems that the metaphor variation at the conceptual levelis in line with Jacobi's (1994) third characteristic of the popularised scientificdiscourse, that is, with the use of everyday language and informal tone. Althoughmetaphors are used in both types of discourse, scientific and popularised, the latterrepresents a higher degree of metaphorical conceptual complexity. The recurringreferences to as many as ten target domains (see examples [6J-[14]) in different submappings, reveal to what extent metaphor is used in making business issues morefamiliar to non-specialist readers. The discourse of business periodicals, ascompared with scientific business journals, appears to be more deeply embedded ineveryday experience, language and tone.
Most of the metaphors used in both corpora contain explicit Topics. The level ofconceptual processing, which may depend on metaphor explicitness or implicitness,is therefore low. This may be due to the fact that the two types ofdiscourse are nonliterary and thus the metaphorical language is not an aim in itself, but isinstrumental in presenting business affairs. A slightly higher percentage of explicitmetaphors in business periodicals, though insignificant, could indicate thatsimplified scientific discourse Oacobi, 1994) implies an even lower level ofconceptual processing. This, however, should be further studied and confirmed.
Linguistic level of metaphor descriptionAs can be seen in Table I, the metaphor variation at the linguistic level shows thesame syntactic structure in both types of discourse: sentence metaphor is thepredominant type of syntactic structure (75% and 800A:l) as compared with phrasemetaphor (25% and 20%). All the examples of the latter type are noun phrases.
Some significant differences between the two types of discourse can be observed inthe lexical category of Focus, i.e. a semantically odd element in a linguisticexpression. The most important variation between the two corpora consists in a
greater use of verb as the metaphor Focus in business periodicals (50% as comparedto 19% in scientific journals). Nouns, on the other hand, are more frequently usedas metaphor focus in scientific journals (69% as compared to 47%), and the sameapplies to adjectives (12% in comparison to 3%).
S01=1\'l IHe: Bl'S]~1 SS I()l R~AI S Bl SIN] SS 1'1 R]OD1( AI S
Metaphor syntactic structure(Noun) Phrase metaphors 25% (Noun) Phrase metaphors 20%Sentence metaphors 75% Sentence metaphors 80%
Focus lexical categoryVerb 19% Verb 50%Noun 69% Noun 47%Adjective: 12% Adjective 3%
Table I. Metaphor variation at the linguistic level
In the examples of noun phrase metaphors which follow, Focus lexical categoriesare listed separately.
[IS] " 'pathological' state of industry" Voumalof Management Studies, 35: 2, 1988, p.126). Focus: pathological (Adjective).[16] "Big Mac empire" VOl/mal of If/orld Bl/slneJJ, 32: 2, 1988, p. 191). Focus: empire(Noue)[17] "IJV behavior" (j(Jumalof lnttrnah'onal BlIsineJJ Studies, 29: 1, p. 180). Focus:behavior (Noun)[181 "the cost disease" (Manaumfnt Acrollnting &starch, 8, 1997, p. 407). Focus: disease(Noue).[191 "corporate parent" (Fortunt, 29/4/96, p. 39). Focus: parent (Noun)[201 "financial drains" (BmineJJ Wtt'k, 4/3/96, p. 35). Focus: financial (Adjective)[21J "marathon between the banks" (ThtEronomist, 13/4/96, p. 79). Focus: marathon(Noue)
Similarly, Focus has been singled out in the following examples of sentencemetaphors.
IBtRICA) [ZOOl): 43-60 53
[22] "A party's reliance on legal mechanisms may decline as an I]V (InternationalJoint Venture) ages, (... )" (journal of International Bunness Studies, 29: I, 1998, p. 182).Focus: ages (Verb).[23) "Most of the corporations who have suffered a major (or even a minor)communications disaster in the past couple of decades share a single malady"(journal of World Business, 32: 2, p. 195). Focus 1: suffered (Verb), Focus 2: malady(Noun)[241 "(...) Monks and Minows emphasize that these shareholdings by incumbentmanagers (...) and other employees may be used as 'poison pills' to defendentrenched managers (...) from shareholder exit (..l (journal of Managtment Studies,35:1,1998, p. 84). Focus: poison pills (Noun phrase)[251 "Potential customers are bombarded with special offers during the quiet wintermonths" (The EronomiJt, 13/4/96, p. 79). Focus: are bombarded (Verb)[26] "The British auto industry whirs with reports that Kim may soon take overLotus, best known for its hot sports cars" (Forlunt, 13/5/96, p. 66). Focus: whirs
(V"b)[27] "Germany's rebound would be 'the locomotive for an export.led revival' on theContinent, (..l. (Business Wttk, 27/5/96, p. 15). Focus: locomotive (Noun)
In view of the results obtained, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions about thevariation of metaphor syntactic structure in the two corpora. It is evident that inboth cases the main tendency is to use sentence metaphors rather than phrasemetaphors. However, the differences between the percentages shown in Table 1 arenot significant enough to conclude which type of metaphor syntactic structure ispreferred in business scientific journals and which in their popularised version.
As far as Focus lexical category is concerned, it appears that in the corpus ofscientific discourse there is a clear tendency to employ nominal metaphors, whereasin periodicals both nominal and verbal metaphors are used nearly as frequently.These results support Cameron's (1999) claim to a certain extent: only half of themetaphors used in the popularised business disc,:>urse are of verbal type. Thescientific business discourse, on the other hand, is structured through the nomill;almetaphors.
The frequent use of nominal metaphors in business journals could point to theimportance paid in the scientific discourse to the factual information and specialist
54 IBERICA 3[:1001):~
terminology (see examples [16H181, [23) and [24]). If, then, the popularisation ofscientific discourse consists in its simplification and metaphor is one of itsreformulation techniques Oacobi 1994), verbal metaphors in business periodicalscould serve to carry out this transformation. Verbs des.cribe states and actions, andit is in this sense that they can be considered as narrative devices. Metaphoricalverbs may be responsible for narrating what has been stated in the scientificdiscourse.
Finally, other metaphor variation consists in a more frequent use of adjective asmetaphor focus in scientific journals than in periodicals. Surprisingly enough, it isin the latter case where metaphorical adjectives could be expected to £Ulr" thefunction of narrative adornment enriching business narration. Nevertheless, if thisvariation is considered in terms of scientific discourse simplification, the lowernumber of metaphorical adjectives in periodicals might point to the existence ofthis particular aspect of popularisation process.
Communicative level of metaphor descriptionThis level of analysis concentrates on the relation between Topic (Literal referent)and non-literal Comment made about it. As shown in the example below, Topic ina metaphorical proposition becomes the Topic of the metaphorical uterrance, andVehicle changes into Comment.
[5] ~Here the organization must makeManagement Studies, 35: 2, 1988, p. ISS).Metaphorical proposition
T and LER: the organizationMetaphorical utterance
T: the organization
a perilous journey (...)" Oournal of
V: make a perilous journey
Comment (C): make aperilous journey
In some cases literal referents in a metaphorical proposition, expressed by aparticular text-surface metaphor, are reduced in number when the relatedmetaphorical utterance is considered. This happens when there are more than oneliteral referent in a linguistic metaphor. Examples below, which have previouslybeen commented on, refer to this particular case of Topic scope reduction. It can
IBtRfC" 3 [2OClII: 43-60 55
Vehicle (V): (is) a means ofcounterattack
Comment (C): is a means ofcounterattack
be observed how the focus on the literal elements at the conceptual level of analysischanges when it comes to interpret a metaphor at the communicative level.
[11 "Smaller domestic firms, particularly in atomistic industries may effectively befrozen out from this option and can therefore only seek administrative protectionas an effective means of counterattack". aournal of World Business, 32: 2, p. 175)Metaphorical proposition
Topic (1) and Literal Explicit Referent:(LeR): smaller domestic firms in atomisticindustries, administrative protection
Metaphorical utteranceTopic (1'): administrative protection
[7] "Four years later he became CEO of RJR Nabisco Holdings, where he stayed untila desperate IBM lured him away" (Fortune, 29/4/96, p. 59).Metaphorical proposition
T: he, CEO of RJR Nabisco Holdings, V: lured him awaya desperate IBM
Metaphorical utteranceT: he C: was lured away by IBM
Communicative level of analysis at this stage overlaps with the conceptual. DifferentTopics make up larger concepts, such as business as human activity. Comments onthe other hand, combine into notions of war, spon, individual or machine, whichfocus on different aspects of business.
Another stage in this analysis consists in elucidating the purposes for whichmetaphors have been used. Our interpretation of the metaphors in scientificbusiness journals has allowed for the distinction of three metaphor communicativefunctions. In our view they offer new insight to business, may be used as a researchinstrument (e.g. game theory), and also offer compact form for business terms (e.g.'dumping injury', 'soft credit', 'hard credit', 'budget games', etc.). These functionscan be easily linked -although not in a one-to-one manner- to the three metaphorqualities mentioned by Onony (1975: 45): "vividness", "compactness", and the"ability to convey the inexpressible".
56 IBl!:RICA 3 (200'1; 43-60
As far as business periodicals are concerned, we suggest that metaphor functionsdiffer only with respect to one specific discourse communicative purpose.Metaphor is not used as a research instrument of a significant cognitive andepistemological value. Instead, its presence in the text is typically rhetorical as itfulfils the function of narrative device.
This particular metaphor variation, which is linked 10 discourse communicativefunctions, is determined by the type of the intended audience, which the two typesof discourse are aimed at. Scientific journals are written for specialist readers,whereas periodicals are intended for the general public. Therefore, even new insightinto business -the common function of bath text types- varies slightly. In journals,metaphors contribute new knowledge to the field ofstudy, while in periodicals, theyprovide a simpler and more familiar view of current business events.
Finally, what clearly differences both types of discourse is the author's attitudetowards the metaphorical expression. The use of inverted commas for somelinguistic metaphors in scientific business journals (see examples [151 and (24]),points to an intention 10 clearly separate the literal from the non-literal, and in thisway to keep a distance from what is non-literal, metaphorical or simply nonscientific. The absence of inverted commas in business periodicals, on the otherhand, could indicate the lack of this type of distance.
These two elements of metaphor variation, the move from the scientificinstrumental to the text-level narrative function of metaphor, on the one hand, andfrom the author's distance to the identification with metaphorical use of words,show that there is a certain type of communicative transformation taking place thatadds to the process of popularisation of scientific discourse.
Conclusions
We should conclude by saying that the popularisation of the scientific businessdiscourse at the level of metaphor variation consists in a number of transformations.At the conceptual level, target domains involved become greater in number and type,increasing the references to everyday experience. Metaphor explicitness rises slightly
too, contributing to a lower level of inferencing in metaphor processing. At thelinguistic level, there is a tendency to employ considerably more verbal metaphorsto the detriment of nominal metaphors. Adjectives as metaphor Focus are used lessfrequently. At the communicative level, there is a shift in the type of metaphorfunctions: from the scientific-instrumental to rhetorical-narrative. Finally, theauthor's attitude alters from an intended distance towards the metaphorical use oflanguage to an identification with this type of linguistic expression.
The transformations undergone point to certain features of the popularisedscientific discourse: simplification, reformulation and the use of everyday languageand tone. All the transformations listed previously can be understood as types ofsimplification taking place at different discourse levels: especially metaphorprocessing and the type of metaphor used. In the latter case, it is the verbalmetaphor which acquires the status of a narrative device, and the populariseddiscourse becomes a narration. Reformulation, that is the use of analogies, refersspecifically to a greater variety of conceptual mappings and sub-mappings, whichmake the comprehension of business content more straightforward. Target domainsinvolved in establishing analogies are based on everyday experience, language andtone, and this is another feature of the popularisation process. Finally, the author'sattitude towards the use of metaphorical language should be added to Jacobi's(1994) taxonomy of popularised discourse features.
This study is by no means a complete one and, for instance, a more detailed analysisof metaphor syntactic structure along with metaphor frequency survey should becompleted too. One suggestion for further research is to continue with this line ofcontrastive analysis, which can be applied to other types of corpora based onscientific and popularised discourses. Thus, a more comprehensive view of thepopularisation process could be gained.
58 IstAIe... 3 {200I]: Q.6O
I Two boob coll«ling the bibliognphy on met.:lphor h~ve lx<:n publi~hed to d~le: Shibles'l (1971)including ovu three thou~nd titles, ~nd Van Nopp"n & Hols's (1990) with mOre than thrcc Ihou~nd
and five hundred referenccs stated.2 The nOn<on5UUClivist view on metaphor is reprC5Cnted mainly by the workl of Richards (1936), Black(1962), Reddy (1969), Mallhcws (1971), Kintsch (1974), and Ortony (1975, 1979, 1980). Forbibliographical referen= oS« Onony (19'93).3 The constructivisl appro.ach to metaphor can be found in Rumelhart (1979, 1993), Reddy (1979,19'93), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (19'93), Slernberg, Tourangeau and Nigro (1993). Forbibliographical referenccs see Onony (19'93).4 Sec, for aample, Mac Comarc (1985), Kittay (1987), Lakoff(1987a,b), Turner (1987),Johnson (1988),Slun (1994), Gibbs (1994).5 The notion of 'our conceptual 5)'5lem' is luen from Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 3) who argue that ilis made up of concepu which -struclure what we perceive, how we get ~round in the world, and howwe relale 10 other prople-. They follow on by uying Ihat ·our conceptual Syslem thus plays a cenlralrole in defining our o:vcryday realitics-.6 Richards (1936), who first used thcsc lerms, defined them in the following way: Topic (ooc:asioruolly call.dTenor) is the subject of the meupbor, whereas Vehicle is the image which embodics Topic. The relationshipbctwccn Ihe two lerms is that of similarity and 'Iension'. This luI fa-lUre is whal guarantCQ the succm of ametaphor. the inoompa.tibility b<:twccn Topic and Vehicle becomes apparent during Ihe inlcrpfCUlion proccs:s.7 Cameron (1m) di51inguishes berwccn Ihru levels ofVehide 5)'5tematicity: [oc:ol (wilhin a partiCulartal), glohal (across lexU from ~ range of discourse types and conlent), and discourse (within languageusc in specific discourse communities).8 Although Stun (199'9) U5CS the terms 'd~usc' and 'scntence' inlerchange~bly in referring 10 a sequenceof words regarded as capable of slanding alone 10 apress a coherent thought, we prefer using the lerm'sentence'. 'Clause' may be associated with smaller uniu of sentences, for aample, with main c4u~es orsubordinate clauses.9 Black (1962) first used these twO concepts. In his almple "The chairman ploughed through thediscussion-, the word ·ploughed" is the focus of the metaphor, and the remainder of the senlence inwhich thaI word occurs is the frame. The bearel of the metaphorical meaning i~ nO longer the wordbut the sentence as a whole. The interaction process does not merely consist in substituting one wordfor another, or one name for anolher, but in an interaction between a logical subject and ~ predicate.Therefore, if metaphor consists in some deviance, it concerns the predicative structure itsclf.10 Stun (1m: 85-6) offer~ one aample: "The rivcr betrayed irs proximity", where ·river- and·proximity- arc twO [itenl referents, about which something i. predicated in a non·literal manner, thatthere is a relation ofbetnyal betwun Ihem. In Ihe communic~tive view, only ·river- is the Topic aboutwhich a Comment is made, that it -betrays its proximity·.II The reformulation teclmiques listed by Jacobi are divided into Ihru large groups: I) expansion andpanphrasc; 2) ~ubstilUtion and an~phora; 3) met.:lphorical axis (a comparison or an an~logy allows for anapproximation to the 'pivot' term of the common language). Mor~ver, Jamb; dill;nguishes thru mainreformulation mechanisms: 1) designation; 2) definition; and 3) analogy (comp;lrisons and metaphors).12 Nominal metaphor is understood as a metaphor whose Focus is exprcssed by a noun Or a nOunphrase. In verhal metaphor, on the otber hand, the Focus is expressed by a verb or a verb phrase
REFERENCES
Adams-5rnilh. O. (1967a). 'Variation i'lIiellkeIaled genres." in T. ~·Evans(ed.). Gerw~ fVId ESP; Vol. l.aRJownaI ,10-32.
Adams-Srrilh. O. (1987b). "The processof popuIarisalioo-rewritillQ medicalreseardl p8IlIfS lor layman: AIiscussion~." .b.m8J d ~ Royal~ 01Medi::i'Je, In 634-636.
llIal:X. t.I. (1962). Mot1tVs fVId Me/aj)'lOr$.New York: llhaca
llIal:X. t.I.(l97'3).lAoreabolA meIallIJOr."in A. 0lI0ny (ed,j,1.Ietaphor fVId 'T1JouI1(1941. New York: CarnbtIdge tJnlversty.....Ilu!lte. K. (1945). AGrammard IoIotM!s.New York: Prentice Hal
Carne<'ofl. L & G. lO!¥ (eels.) (1999).Researdling fVId App/yrIg Melaphot.CanOiclge: Catriboldge LJnio,oersity Press.
Carne<'ofl. L (1999). "OperalionaisWlg'melaphor' b appliad Ir9isli: researctL·in L Camenwl and G. lO!¥ (eds.)~1rJ1~~.:>-28.
~C!Irtri:Ige lkWriy PI!$$.
1St-RICA 3 (ZOO11: 43-40 59
1
CclrW3. III & J. l.iIiiI1 (1999~ "BridgesIII INrrWlg; Melaphots crI IeidWIg,llIIrrwIg nI ~". In L~nI G. lJ.- "I Reser chi", .-.J~~. 1019-116.e.tDiclgII:ClrYt:rit./I~ PI-.
Obit" IlJ.. (19ll6). "FJI)'ll 'New EJ'9;nl.b.InII crI IlIeobI( trd '.b.InII crI lie~~AssodIlion'tmql..'AID:iIIId Pless' III tat~$liIr'ilik~ b til UIJ" i'I T.lUlgIltIIl t-i~~l.hi GIS r ,." 24253. HanDlr;:Edlion AbdIIl*:fI.
~ GA & N. M.m, (197q.~~blXl»iiis"
Slrilrd u.-siIr. InsliUe III~ ReseaId'I Report
o.,n. R (1Sl- ''C:IplIilIllIllJCMQ stilt:~trdtll~g/d'Il;ri:;
a-". ~ L em.m & G. u. (ldLl~n~~.203
220.~ r..mill}I t.mriy-Gtb5, R W. (1994). n. f'\leIics ciMm Fij;uI/iIoe 1hc.tugt~.-.JUI__dllQ. Hew YarIc: CarrbridgIl
L.menily PI-.
..IIo:ti, O. (1994). 'tli9tJ;Jn~~. o:beoJr1, 'olJgarises.' i'I J.I"qu6, J.·V. AIIhu-8esiI, III dI!II C. CUI!IiI"(<<lI.J L.I~df~tI.liIlilcws~9-18."""NAUI..Ins.
JoMson, M. (1988). Tht Body .. /heM.nct Tht &dIy Basis and~ron.()oQgo; UrWersiIy of Chicago Press.
.kne& G.. I, COrnel & J. Meadows(1978). Thtpt9S8IlIII1iM 01sdence 1Jy/hemeek~ crI l.eiaIslel", PrinaIyComnulicalion Reseatdl Cerfre.
Kahn, J.Y. (1gsJ). Modils ci md:aI~A..-.k~1Il
/tdloclb ci1I'Id:lN.-.J,..,/Ii:mt~ /Ioob. Bem "'ban
~ A (19811. Oodori'lgo 1It __The npriw ci ".. IIId~...--'E.F.(1!l81).~IIf~
~ fIfJ~ Sfto::tIa 0d0I¢:--l.*lI. G. (19871)~ fit nI~1I'qI.Dic¥:ThI~
g/ Olkajp PlIsf,.
~ G. (198Jll1.. -n. ... crI dIId~.Metlp'I:I'n~AcMr2:147.
..... G. (19193l. 1lle .....,.....,fwl!y g/ /I"llIlIptlOI': i'I A ()w, ~I2n:l tdllion~ IIId~ 2(12.251. Hew Ylllt: CIRtri:lgI~-~G.& M..Ii:llral(I. oWlIlIp'D1.. 1M sr. 0'i::I9X n. ......, g/
",--
to-. G. (I•. " 1'IiI P'PIf .......~~ .. aooeplIbilr 01 lhe~ AN ESSAY IS APERSOH".1n LCarnelm n G. Low (1dL)~IJ)j ~ 1.tfIIrphoI, 221·248,~ c.rtnlge lkiIwIly PrIse.
Mac Cormac. E. R. (19851. A Covi'iYeTh90ty III UIMp/lOf. CItnbridoI. t.Iaa:Mrr_
Nwogu. K. M. (1991). 'Structure 01Science PopuIal'il,!ionI;: A Genr.·AnafrsiS Approach to Ih!I Schtma crIPopIAariltd MIl<bI Tem: EIlf1Ii$h lotSpedIIcPlJrp(M$, 10: 111·123.
~ A (11i175). 'WllJ'~ art~WldrD... ra". EdaIi:rW1'-Y2S: 45-S3.
()w" A (1ll93).~. Itf'9AIleWId to4t'. In A Cln:::nt ("'1 oWeap'lDrIIId 1J'Jol9It (2d ...~ c.rtri:Igt:CIntriI:lgII~ PnlsL
Riclwdt.l A (1936j. Tht~ d"'-ri:. 0d0I¢: 0Ibd li'MniIr PnIsL
SMItt. W. A {1971~ ~ AnAtn:UIed 8MlyI4'hr IIId Iisby.~.WiL.: l.Mlpge Press.
s.n.G.{1994~U...:d4l~i'I~ l..cirIdcrI and Hew Ylllt:...........G. (1\l991. 'MIIll*I WId cI!la:lna:rc-.a I hJ.i*d** b IlIIIlIPn...,.,. In L c.r.tII.-.:I G. u. (IdL)
~ IIId~ .IoI!Illp'u; 81·10,1.~~ lkMrsllr-TIJIOf, O. E. (1975). Thor lI'M5Mr cii'IIbrntIiDn .kim jaIrwJ b lit massIIllIdiI.~ III Sc 0isserIaIi0n.Qy lftro'riy,l#r:bI.
T-. M. (1987). 0NfI ... "..... IIIBeaIy. CIIc:Igo: Tl'e l.niriy crI 0ita!JJ"'"-VM Nopptn, J..p., Hols, E. WId..lCW'lgen.A. (....J (1985). IM~ U: AQIssIiId 8tIIiogrr(Ihyci Pl.iIi::ItiorIS ciPost·lliI70 Pubi:ltions. Am$terdam:_.Varlll~, K. (1987j. 'PopuIarizationJlrategles and tense 1u'lcliotIaI1NIls .,selenliflcJlechnk:a1 writing: UNESCOAlSEO - LSP NewsJelter. 10(2): 33-52.
