The role of metaphor in shaping the identity and agenda of the United Nations: the imagining of an international community and international threat

This article examines the representation of the United Nations in speeches delivered by its Secretary General. It focuses on the role of metaphor in constructing a common ‘imagining’ of international diplomacy and legitimising an international organisational identity. The SG legitimises the organisation, in part, through the delegitimisation of agents/actions/events constructed as threatening to the international community and to the well-being of mankind. It is a desire to combat the forces of menace or evil which are argued to motivate and determine the organisational agenda. This is predicated upon an international ideology of humanity in which difference is silenced and ‘working towards the common good’ is emphasised. This is exploited to rouse emotions and legitimise institutional power. Polarisation and antithesis are achieved through the employment of metaphors designed to enhance positive and negative evaluations. The article further points to the constitutive, persuasive and edifying power of topic and situationally-motivated metaphors in speech-making

Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk

In a violent world, reconciliation between perpetrators and victims offers an alternative to revenge or retaliation. In such discourse, participants must make extended efforts to explain themselves to, and to understand, the Other. This article investigates emergent patterns of metaphor in reconciliation talk between an IRA bomber and victim, recorded over two and a half years. The analysis starts from identification of linguistic metaphors and works recursively between levels of discourse, revealing how micro-level negotiation of metaphors contributes to emergent macro-level metaphor systems. Metaphors frame the reconciliation process as A JOURNEY, as CONNECTION, as CHANGING A DISTORTED IMAGE and as LISTENING TO THE OTHER’S STORY. The metaphors vary in their lexicogrammatical patterns and in the degree to which they are extended and developed. Contrasting metaphors are shown to be particularly valuable, as is ‘symbolic literalization’ in which the use of words across metaphor, metonymy and the literal creates useful indeterminacy

Stance and metaphor: mapping changing representations of (organizational) identity

This article illustrates how metaphor is used as a stance-taking resource and strategy to indirectly index enduring and changing representations of organizational identity through an analysis of speeches delivered by consecutive Secretary Generals of an agency of the United Nations. Drawing on Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005, 2006) framework of identity, and recent research on stance (e.g. Du Bois, 2007), it illustrates how metaphor marks attitudes and orientations to context, propositions and social and political structures/relationships. The analysis highlights similarities in the depiction of the organization over two terms of office, but also reveals differences in identity positioning and inter-subjective framing. Particular metaphorical scenarios and mappings are used rhetorically to strengthen subject positions and alignments, and mark evaluations, supporting Du Bois’s theory of stance as a ‘triune’ act. It is argued that a combined analysis of stance and metaphor provides an important framework and instrument for further research on identity construction, especially in organizational and political discourse. Moreover, the theory of stance can be further enhanced through an investigation of metaphorical mappings

Messing Up the Mind?:Analogical Reasoning with Metaphors

One major facilitator of analogical reasoning is conceptual metaphor: cross-domain mappings that preserve relations and thereby motivate the extension of linguistic terms from the source to the target domain. Their conscious and explicit use in analogical reasoning has been helpful and productive in disciplines ranging from physics to psychology, and philosophy. At the same time, students of metaphor have suggested that partially unwitting use of conceptual metaphors led to unsound but intuitive conceptions of the mind, in philosophy and psychology. This paper develops an explanation of some highly influential intuitions from the philosophy of mind, which helps answer the resulting question: When and why does the frequently helpful use of metaphors in analogical reasoning turn pernicious? In response, the paper brings together two hitherto largely distinct strands of research from cognitive psychology, in a case-study on the philosophy of mind: The paper uses structure-mapping theory to explain how simple analogical reasoning generates conceptual metaphors that facilitate more complex analogical reasoning, which is often non-intentional. Second, the paper examines how such reasoning interacts with partial-matching effects in memory-based processing. Drawing on Budiu and Anderson’s model of ‘information-based processing’, the paper shows that this interaction leads to predictable fallacies. It brings out the relevance of such fallacies by showing that they shaped introspective conceptions of the mind that dominated philosophical discourse throughout early modernity and retain some cultural influence to this day. On this basis, the paper delineates when and where those fallacies are liable to occur