When experts educate, what do their metaphors say? Complex metaphor structure in the professional conflict resolution literature

• Autores: Thomas H. Smith
• Localización: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE ), ISSN-e 2340-2784, ISSN 1139-7241, Nº. 17, 2009 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Metafora y LFE), págs. 175-195
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    Resumen Cuando los expertos educan, ¿ qué dicen sus metáforas? La estructura de las metáforas complejas en las publicaciones profesionales relativas a la resolución de conflictos El presente análisis del uso de la metáfora en un amplio corpus de literatura experta (la resolución de conflictos y la mediación profesional) sugiere que los expertos operan con ciertas presuposiciones implícitas y nos proporcionan otro punto de vista respecto de la estructura de su pensamiento. Se utilizan reiteradamente siete metáforas muy convencionales para plasmar tanto descripciones como explicaciones, y estas metáforas facilitan la comprensión por parte de los no expertos. Las metáforas utilizadas no son exclusivas al campo específico en cuestión. Su uso puede a veces simplificar de manera excesiva e incluso confundir, pero otros factores del discurso en cuestión mitigan estos efectos negativos. La frecuencia de los dominios fuente (recipiente, objetos, terreno, vista, movimiento, viaje y estructura) apuntan a que se trata de metáforas conceptuales que ponen de manifiesto distintos modelos de pensamiento. El corpus muestra una interdependencia entre las siete metáforas y se evalúan las maneras en que facilitan u obstaculizan la comprensión.

  • English

    Abstract This metaphoric analysis of a quarter-million word corpus of an expert literature (conflict resolution and professional mediation) suggests certain implicit assumptions of the experts and gives us an alternate view of the structure of their thinking. Seven highly conventional metaphors are repeatedly used to frame descriptions and explanations, making a complex subject matter more accessible to learners. They have been reported widely in other literatures and genres and are not particular to the field of expertise covered. These metaphors were found in some instances to oversimplify and mislead, mitigated to a degree when combinations of metaphors reconstituted some of the necessary complexity.

    The seven principal metaphor source domains found are containers, objects, terrain, seeing/viewing, moving, journeying, and structuring. Evidence of frequent and diverse mappings argues that these are conceptual metaphors, revealing possible thinking patterns. The combining and alternating of metaphors in mutually complementary ways shows an interdependence among the seven metaphors. These naturally occurring conceptual groupings clarify and elaborate meaning in the texts in a way comparable to inheritance hierarchies.

    The discussion of the results focuses on ways these metaphors both help and hinder understanding of the field in question.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
  • Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Coleman, P.T., L. Bui-Wrzosinska, R.R. Vallacher & A. Nowak (2006). “Protracted conflicts as dynamical systems” in A.K. Schneider &...
  • Gelfand, M.J. & C. McCusker (2001). “Metaphor and the cultural construction of negotiation: A paradigm for theory and practice” in M....
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kupferberg, I. & D. Green (2005). Troubled Talk: Metaphorical Negotiation in Problem Discourse. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Lakoff, G. (1993). “Contemporary theory of metaphor” in A. Ortony (ed.), 202-251.
  • Lakoff, G. (1994) “Conceptual metaphor home page”. URL: http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/[03/03/08].
  • Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Lakoff, G. & M. Turner (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Müller, R. (2005). “Creative metaphors in political discourse”. URL: http://metaphorik.de [24/04/2006].
  • Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Ortony, A. (ed.) (1993). Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Plementitaš, K. (1998). “The role of grammatical metaphor in certain types of discourse in English and Slovene” in J. Ciglar Żanić, D. Kalogiara...
  • Pragglejaz Group (2007). “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse”. Metaphor and Symbol 22: 1-39.
  • Richardt, S. (2005). Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Semino, E. (2005) “The metaphorical construction of complex domains: the case of speech activity in English”. Metaphor and Symbol 20: 35-70.
  • Semino, E. (2006). “Topic triggered metaphors in political discourse”. Paper presented at Researching and Applying Metaphor VI, University...
  • Smith, T.H. (2005). “Metaphors for navigating negotiations”. Negotiation Journal 21: 343-364.
  • Steinhart, E. (2001). The Logic of Metaphor - Analogous Parts of Possible Words. (Synthese Library, Volume 299). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic...
  • Sticht, T.G. (1993). “Educational uses of metaphor” in A. Ortony (ed.), 621-632.
  • Sundlöf, A., A. Carstensen, L. Tibell & J. Bernhard (2003). “Real models in modelled reality: epistemic confusion when Communicating...