Construing the world: conceptual metaphors and event-construal in news stories

Monika A. Bednarek, Augsburg (Monika.Bednarek@phil.uni-augsburg.de)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with conceptual metaphors and event-construal in newspaper language. Event-construal is defined as „the way in which a particular event in the ‚real-world‛ is construed via textualisation“. The paper takes up the notion of metaphors as creative stylistic devices in news stories (analysing stories in The Sun, The Guardian and The New York Times) and shows how tapping into conceptual metaphors helps to establish ‚event-construals‛ in texts. This, in turn, it is argued, has many functions, including the most central ones of evaluation and dramatisation. Analysing news stories about different ‚newsworthy‛ events, the paper demonstrates how the choice of a particular event-construal crucially depends on the emotional potential of reported statements. It is proposed that (although there is a lot of interaction between verbal and non-verbal signs which co-establish such construals), conceptual metaphors are particularly important for strategically building up event-construals. These event-construals themselves, it is suggested, are important cognitive devices that help the reader to create coherence.

In diesem Beitrag geht es um konzeptuelle Metaphern und sogenannte event-construals in der Zeitungssprache. (Event-construal wird definiert als die Art und Weise, wie Ereignisse in der außersprachlichen Welt durch Textualisierung konstruiert werden.) Metaphern werden hier als kreative stilistische Mittel verstanden und analysiert; es soll gezeigt werden, wie durch den Rückgriff auf konzeputelle Metaphern bestimmte event-construals in Texten etabliert werden. Dies, so wird argumentiert, hat seinerseits viele Funktionen, darunter vor allem die Bewertung und Dramatisierung von Ereignissen. Durch die Analyse von verschiedenen Zeitungsartikeln in The Sun, The Guardian und The New York Times wird gezeigt, dass die Wahl eines bestimmten event-construals vom emotionalen Potential der zitierten Aussagen abhängt. Es wird vorgeschlagen, dass (trotz der hohen Interaktion zwischen sprachlichen und nicht-sprachlichen Zeichen, die solche construals zusammen etablieren), konzeptuelle Metaphern besonders wichtig für den strategischen Aufbau von event-construals sind. Die event-construals selbst können als wichtige kognitive Mittel dienen, welche dem Leser/der Leserin helfen, Kohärenz zu erzeugen.

1. Introduction

At the heart of studies on metaphor we can find two central questions: ‚What are metaphors?‛ and ‚What are metaphors for?‛ (Ortony 1993b: 15). It is the latter question that will be addressed in this paper, which discusses the text-linguistic function of metaphors in news stories. I shall argue that metaphors are crucial devices for establishing particular construals of ‚newsworthy‛ events in news reports (in interplay with other textual and semiotic devices).

Traditionally, metaphors were the exclusive domain of rhetoric, analysed alongside other tropes as imaginative, poetic, ornamental devices. Typically, the term metaphor was thus used to refer to the unexpected use of language in literature (e.g. Shakespeare’s Life’s but a walking shadow), whereas conventional, familiarised metaphors (e.g. a dull sound) were defined as ‚dead‛, because the original semantic contradictions of such metaphors are not recognised as such by speakers. In more recent years, however, cognitive linguists have shown that these conventionalised metaphors play a large role in language.[1] Thus, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have used conventional metaphors to argue that much of our everyday talk (and, hence, as they claim, much of our thought, and much of our reality) is structured metaphorically.[2] This means that most of our abstract categories are organised cognitively by structures borrowed from more concrete categories. In cognitive linguistics (CL), conceptual metaphors are thus defined as „a mapping of the structure of a source model onto a target model“ (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 120). These mappings are realised linguistically. For instance, the conceptual metaphor time is money is reflected in the linguistic expressions You’re wasting my time, This gadget will save you hours, Is that worth your while, He’s living on borrowed time etc. (Lakoff / Johnson 1980: 7-8). According to Lakoff / Johnson, there are three different types of conceptual metaphors: (1) structural metaphors refer to the organisation of one concept in terms of another (e.g. time is money), (2) orientational metaphors are concerned with the (mostly spatial) organisation of a whole range of concepts (e.g. happy is up; sad is down) and (3) ontological metaphors relate to „ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances“ (Lakoff / Johnson 1980: 25) (e.g. inflation is an entity).[3] In this paper I shall focus on structural metaphors, however.

It appears that most research on conceptual metaphors focuses on finding out more about the existence of particular conceptual metaphors (i.e. typical target and source models and their linguistic realisations) as well as their influence on human thought (e.g. Lakoff / Johnson 1980; Reddy 1993; Kövecses 1990). This kind of research examines the metaphorical conceptualisation of cognition.[4] In contrast to this, the text-linguistic approach adopted in this paper takes up the notion of metaphors as creative stylistic devices in news stories (analysing stories in The Sun, The Guardian and The New York Times, taken from the newspapers’ web pages) and shows how tapping into conceptual metaphors helps to establish what will be called ‚event-construals‛ in texts. This, in turn, has many functions, including the most central ones of evaluation and dramatisation.

As such, the approach adopted here has some aspects in common with Lenk (2002) and Lakoff / Turner (1989) (who focus on the metaphorical style of literary texts) as well as with Lakoff (1992), while differing from these studies in broadening the focus to an examination of the interaction of linguistic means to establish event-construals.

2. Event-construals in texts

In the following sections I intend to show the important role of tapping into conceptual metaphors and employing other linguistic and semiotic devices to construe events, to establish ‚event-construals‛ in news stories. This term derives from research within cognitive linguistics (CL), where the human capacity to „mentally ‚construe‛ a situation in alternative ways“ (Taylor 2002: 11) is regarded as one of the basic cognitive capacities with which CL is concerned. Thus we can employ different figure-ground organisation, different degrees of explicitness and inexplicitness, detail, agentivity, perspective, generality, and specificity in imagining and describing a situation. Language plays an important part in this, since different linguistic expressions establish different construals. One of the best-known examples for this are the differences between active and passive, tense and aspect, converse verbs, or semantically-related lexical items. For example, the difference between shore and coast is that „while the SHORE is the boundary between land and water from the water’s point of view, the COAST is the boundary between land and water from the land’s point of view“ (Fillmore 1982: 121). Similarly, to be in the bus implies that the bus is not in service, to be on the bus means that it is (cf. Fillmore 1985: 235).[5] The difference between nouns and verbs also provides a certain construal of an event. Compare:

(1)

a. Wheeler fell of the cliff.

b. Keegan entered the room.

(2)

a. Wheeler’s fall from the cliff.

b. Keegan’s entrance into the room.

(Saeed 1997: 331)

As Saeed (1997: 331) has pointed out, in the first pair of these sentences, the event is seen as a sequence of sub-events, whereas in the second pair, it is seen as a complete unit.[6] Many more examples could be cited, but I hope it is sufficiently clear by now in which way construals may be brought about by language. The term event-construal is derived from this usage and refers to the way in which a particular event in the ‚real-world‛ is construed via textualisation when it is reported in a newspaper. [7]

2.1. Evaluation and dramatisation

Before the empirical analysis of the news stories below, two further concepts must be introduced briefly: evaluation and dramatisation. Evaluation is here defined as the expression of speaker/writer opinion, and involves the evaluation of aspects of the world on the part of the speaker/writer e.g. as more or less positive/negative, important/unimportant, expected/unexpected, comprehensible/incomprehensible, possible/impossible, serious/funny, genuine/fake etc (alternative terms used in the literature on evaluation are stance and appraisal). Dramatisation, on the other hand, is simply concerned with ‚making things more dramatic‛, i.e. making aspects of the world appear more excited, impressive, and sensational than they perhaps are. There is thus a close connection between dramatisation and exaggeration.

2.2. Text 1: „PM: I still have a lot to do“

In the first text analysed in this paper („PM: I still have a lot to do“, The Sun, 1.8.2003), statements made by one person (Tony Blair) are explicitly being presented as if a symbolic exchange with others took place. On the one hand, Tony Blair’s statements are construed as being opposed to Gordon Brown’s alleged hopes/dreams (torpedoed Gordon Brown’s dreams, crushed the Chancellor’s hopes); on the other hand, Tony Blair is shown to react to unnamed others’ statements (brushed aside calls to quit, has been stung by claims). Other expressions work more implicitly to give the text the appearance of a dialogue (insist, defence, admit) and may convey an impression of the „interactional conduct“ (Clayman 1990: 80) of Tony Blair.

However, the text moves beyond the construal of Tony Blair’s statements as simply being part of a dialogue and reconstructs them as being part of an argument. This is achieved strategically by various means. For instance, the text invokes linguistic expressions from the conceptual (structural) metaphor argument is a battle (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 123).[8] This metaphor consists of the mapping of the source model battle onto the target model argument. argument thus inherits some of the cognitive structures (including the stages) of a battle, which can be seen in various linguistic expressions frequently used to talk about language:

This conceptual metaphor is strategically invoked in the news story by the reporting expressions used in the text. These are: torpedo, insist, brush aside, crush, say (2), quip, mount a defence, admit (2), claim (noun), go on, declare, insist (2). Only three instances can be regarded as neutral (go on, say); one indicates low reliability (claims), and three indicate positive and negative evaluation (quip, admit; see below). The majority, however, either indicate the speaker’s (here: Tony Blair) power (insist (2), declare) or, even more importantly, belong to the military domain and realise the argument is a battle metaphor:[9]

· torpedo (military meaning: ‚to attack or sink a ship with a torpedo or torpedoes‛)[10]

· brush aside (military meaning: The enemy brushed aside our defences)

· crush (military meaning: The rebellion was crushed by government forces)

· mount a vigorous defence

· has been stung (‚to hurt or wound sb with or as if with a sting‛)[11].

The conceptual metaphor argument is a battle which is invoked in The Sun with the help of these reporting expressions establishes a particular construal of the reported event. However, tapping into conceptual metaphors is only one means of establishing such an event-construal. Other signs also contribute to the battle construal. Thus, it is reinforced by the accompanying image of Tony Blair and its caption (Fighting talk … Blair yesterday), which provides a summary of the battle construal. The image itself shows Tony Blair close-up, determined, and attentive. One might even notice a certain similarity to a military helicopter pilot in plate 1 (because of the headphones), though this was probably not intended. No matter how we interpret the picture, there is no semiotic contradiction between the battle construal and the image (as would be the case if Tony Blair was pictured smiling or shaking someone’s hand). The ‚extreme close-up‛ also implies an intimate social relationship with the reader (Kress / van Leeuwen 1999: 386-390):[12]

Plate 1: The Sun, 1.8.2003

The event-construal is also reinforced by typography, which stresses the defiant character of Tony Blair at the very beginning of the story and provides an apt introduction of the battle construal by introducing the readers to the theme of aggression/opposition:

(3)

PM: I still have a lot to do

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON

Deputy Political Editor

DEFIANT Tony Blair last night torpedoed Gordon Brown’s dreams by insisting he wants to stay in power for years to come.

As we have seen above, battles (and arguments) are typically constructed out of several stages. Here not all are explicitly expressed: the linguistic expressions in the news story are restricted to the realisation of the stages of Attack and Defence. The central question, however – who wins the battle – is not explicitly stated (as it would be in a sentence such as Tony Blair’s opponents had to succumb to the force of his arguments). Nevertheless, the answer is implicitly supplied by the text:

Firstly, Tony Blair is characterised as the more powerful opponent via the reporting expressions mentioned above and via the selection of the headline PM: I still have a lot to do. This headline gives an impression of Tony Blair’s power, suggesting a paraphrase like the following: ‚I, not the government, will do a lot for you, the people‛. In this headline Tony Blair is the government, it is he who pulls the strings, so to speak. The selected quotes also imply power and determination:

· he wants to stay in power for years to come

· „There is a big job of work still to do and my appetite for doing it is undiminished“

· „There is an enormous amount still to do“

· he was right to have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein.

Secondly, Tony Blair is also evaluated positively via propositional contents that would be regarded as positive by many readers because of their cultural assumptions:

· He brushed aside calls to quit on the eve of making history [positive evaluation: making history is a good thing in this context] by becoming the Labour Prime Minister who has served the longest single period. [Becoming the Labour Prime Minister who has served the longest single period is positive evaluation, similar to the examples above and below]

· Mr Blair, who on Saturday beats Clement Attlee’s 50-year record as leader of the longest-serving Labour administration [positive evaluation: beating records is a good thing in this context] again declared he was right to have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein.

· The PM looked at ease [positive evaluation: suggests that his arguments are strong (also implies power) and that he is not nervous, aggressive, choleric, defensive etc] as he mounted a vigorous defence of his record on Iraq and the public services.

· He even quipped (positive evaluation of speaker; Tony Blair is presented as intelligent and humorous; the scalar particle even in connection with the previous sentence suggests that he is very much at ease indeed (hence power is again implied: Tony Blair is so much in control of the situation that he can make jokes) his job was easier than the England cricket captain’s in the wake of Nasser Hussein’s resignation

Thirdly, even the two instances of negative admit are weakened or subverted. Usually, admit is concerned with negative evaluation, implying in effect several things: it shows that a statement was produced reluctantly (Clayman 1990: 87), carries the implied assumption that some negative act has been committed (Hardt-Mautner 1995: 13) or suggests that the content of the reported proposition is negative.[13] However, if we look at the first example But he frankly admitted schools, hospitals and roads have not improved nearly enough under his leadership, the first assumption is actually explicitly denied by the context (he frankly admitted), and the second presupposition is weakened by the reported proposition itself: Although schools, hospitals and roads have not improved nearly enough, (1) they did improve, and (2) the process is not over yet. In the second example, He admitted his decision had sent public trust in him into freefall — but it was worth it, the third presupposition (p is negative) is weakened in that the reported proposition is not negative to the readers (the public) but to the speaker (Tony Blair) and in that it is, moreover, contrasted with a definite it was worth it. These examples are instances of a strategy I would like to call ‚neutralising the negative‛.

Tony Blair is thus represented as the powerful, calm, intelligent, humorous, good leader, who has had difficulties because of his position (has been stung by claims that billions of taxpayers’ cash is being frittered away on pen-pushers, public trust has vanished) but who has put up with it in order to liberate the people in Iraq (it was worth it). Consequently, it is he who must win the battle of arguments established via the use of conceptual metaphor and other linguistic devices in this news story.[14]

The analysis so far has pointed out two important functions of event-construals (and conceptual metaphors): evaluation (Tony Blair is evaluated positively) and what I would call dramatisation (the event is construed as a battle).[15] Both may be used to attract particular readers to the newspaper. On another level, such event-construals are also important cognitive devices in providing overall coherence for the reader, providing him/her with cues on how to decode the story.

2.3 Text 2: „You are killing our firms“

Similar issues are present in the second text that was analysed („You are killing our firms“, The Sun, 2.9.2003), although this time it is not Tony Blair’s statements that are reported but rather the statements of industry leaders.

Again, the reporting expressions that are employed in the story are interesting to look at: three instances are neutral (say (2), believe), one indicates low reliability (claim), one indicates intensity (stress), but the majority (six out of ten) signal opposition, conflict or battle (protest, threaten, turn on, complain, accuse, demand the showdown). This creates the impression that the businessmen and Tony Blair (and the unions) are engaged in a battle. This battle construal is reinforced by the captions (Showdown … Blair; Demands … Sir John), which summarise this event-construal, as well as by the selection of the quote of a so-called ‚industry insider‛:

· Industry insiders last night stressed the influential group mean business. One said: „It is the first time they have ganged up on him and he ignores what they say at his peril.“

Here expressions such as gang up on him, at his peril evoke a world of aggression and opposition rather than of business relations. The accusatory headline (You are killing our firms) and the juxtaposition of the two images (plates 2 and 3) also contribute to this:

Note that here it is one of the businessmen that is singled out (Sir John Bond) for the image, to give the impression of a ‚duel‛, a fight between men. The close-ups show two men with grim, determined faces (Tony Blair is even baring his teeth, a traditionally aggressive gesture), rather than two friendly people. As Kress / van Leeuwen point out, the facial expression of represented participants may determine the kind of relation that viewers develop to them (Kress / van Leeuwen 1999: 381). Imagine the different effect of a picture showing a group of businessmen in suits and ties, from some distance, with neutral or friendly facial expressions, juxtaposed with a picture of Tony Blair, seen from some distance, smiling and waving to the viewer. Again, there is certainly no semiotic contradiction between the images and the event-construal, no matter how the meaning of these images is interpreted.

The battle construal is also reinforced by an additional important conceptual metaphor: industry and governmental actions (taxes/reforms) are persons engaged in a battle.^[16] This is realised by one unsignalled and two signalled propositions (The headline (You are killing our firms) only involves the firms are persons metaphor):[17]

· And the crumbling road and rail network is handicapping industry (unsignalled)

This metaphor hides the internal diversity and contradicting interests of industry and justifies the claim that there is a unifying business interest that must be pursued above all (similar observations have been made for the state is a person metaphor by Lakoff 1992). A second metaphor that comes into play is industry is a weak (ill, almost dead, handicapped) person. This is related to one of the most favourite source categories in politics: illness (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 150). Like other social actors in politics, the businessmen have opted for a metaphor that combines a simple explanation with strong emotions, with the goal of the manipulation of the public (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 149ff). As metaphors are especially useful means in articulating new ideas and concepts, facilitating learning (Ortony 1993b: 14-15) and making things particularly memorable (Sticht 1993: 622), they also considerably influence popular folk knowledge of abstract concepts such as industry and policy (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 152). Although the metaphor is not established by the newspaper itself, but merely reported, such reported metaphors in general help „powerful people [to] impose their metaphors“ (Lakoff / Johnson 1980: 157) on us and thus to „bring about basic changes in how we understand ourselves and the world around us.“ (Sticht 1993: 631).

This metaphor also works to extend the battle construal from Tony Blair/businessmen to governmental actions/industry: there is a metonymic relation between Tony Blair and the government as well as between the businessmen and industry. This enforces the battle event-construal (of which Attack is the only stage realised linguistically). The question of victory is not as clearly decided as in the above text, as there are contradicting evaluations: On the one hand, the businessmen are represented as very powerful, as can be seen from the following averred and attributed linguistic expressions:[18]

· A delegation … includes HSBC bank chief Sir John Bond, Unilever boss Niall FitzGerald and BP’s Lord Hogg (averred)

· turn on, ganged up on him (with some negative evaluation; the first is averred, the second is attributed)

· threaten to move abroad (presumably evaluated negatively, against national interest; averred/attributed)[19]

However, the unions are also evaluated negatively as left-wing union barons (averred). It is thus not quite clear who emerges as the victor from the battle – the outcome might in fact be a stalemate.

Again, the event-construal establishes the basis for evaluations, provides coherence, and, most importantly, dramatises the event. In addition, the conceptual metaphors attributed to the businessmen convey a particular image of industry and government relations, which may influence popular folk knowledge.

2.3. Text 3: „My husband felt betrayed. He had a broken heart“

So far we have seen how The Sun employs reporting verbs to tap into basic conceptual metaphors such as argument is a battle in order to establish a particular construal of a reported event (together with other semiotic devices).

In contrast, let us look at the third text that was analysed („My husband felt betrayed. He had a broken heart“, The Sun, 2.9.2003), where the reporting verbs are largely neutral (the most frequent ones are say (19), tell (8), add (4), heard (3)), or at least do not indicate conflict. Obviously, Janice Kelly’s testimony is not predominantly construed as part of an argument, part of a battle. There are only three expressions that realise argument is a battle:[20]

· Whitehall insiders last night said Mrs Kelly’s evidence had badly damaged the Ministry of Defence and dealt a huge blow to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon’s bid to hang on to his job

However, these are attributed rather than averred (with the caption repeating the reported expression), and three instances of this metaphor in a 1.154 word story are certainly not many in any case. The reported event is hence not primarily construed as a battle, although this particular event-construal is present to a certain degree and helps to dramatise the event. This dramatisation is reinforced by the emblem-like image of a grimly looking Lord Hutton (plate 4):

But the majority of the reporting verbs do not contribute to such a construal. In contrast, the equivalent news story in The Guardian („Mrs Kelly’s doubts on key claims“, The Guardian 2.9.2003) makes frequent mention of the inquiry and provides more references to the questions that were asked. The questioning/hearing construal is thus stronger in The Guardian than in The Sun.

For The Sun, the emotions of the participants in the reported event are much more important than a dramatising construal of the speech activity itself, since the content of the reported propositions per se represents perfect tabloid ‚material‛ with many references to participants’ emotions (which are important devices to evoke the reader’s emotions (Ungerer 1997)). In fact, the focus of the construal is on Dr Kelly’s emotions (as reported by Mrs Kelly) rather than on Mrs Kelly’s emotions.[21] This is hidden by the caption to Janice Kelly’s image (Moving … Janice Kelly told of ordeal), since the elliptical form of the headline does not allow us to identify precisely whose ordeal is meant – Mrs Kelly’s or Dr Kelly’s, Mrs and Dr Kelly’s, or the family’s. (The natural inference is probably that Mrs Kelly tells of her own ordeal, because Janice Kelly is the only nominal antecedent present. However, if told of is understood as passive, this inference would not be seen as the most natural, since, logically, one is not told of one’s own ordeal, because one has suffered it oneself).[22] But it is signalled explicitly by the headline: My husband felt betrayed. He had a broken heart. As in the other texts, the headline here works as an encapsulation of the event-construal of the news story.[23]

The news story’s focus on the participants’ emotions is indicated in the text by some references to Mrs Kelly’s and the family’s emotions,[24] either signalled or unsignalled (the ‚experiencer‛ of the emotion is given in brackets): [25]

· She added: „Immediately David said, ‚It’s me.‛ My heart sank.“ (Mrs Kelly, signalled))

· Mrs Kelly said: „I was in a terrible state, trying not to think awful things.“ (Mrs Kelly, signalled)

· „He seemed very, very unhappy. We were all worried about him. He seemed to have aged and lost weight.“ (the family, signalled)

· The inquiry also heard the Kelly family were furious at reports that branded the scientist „a Walter Mitty character“. (the family, signalled)

· She told how the nightmare began when Dr Kelly went to London on May 22 for a seemingly-innocuous briefing with BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. (unspecific, presumably the Kellys, signalled)

· Mrs Kelly told how the pressure dramatically increased a few days later as she and Dr Kelly watched a Channel 4 news report that said an MoD official had admitted speaking to Gilligan. (unspecific, presumably the Kellys, signalled)

· Two days later she was so worried about him that she was ‚physically sick‛ (Mrs Kelly, unsignalled)

· She said that later he left to go for a walk. When he wasn’t back after 25 minutes she started to worry (Mrs Kelly, unsignalled)

· The couple broke their journey in Weston-super-Mare and spent a sleepless night in a hotel. (Mr and Mrs Kelly, unsignalled)

· But the uneasy peace was shattered by a phone call from his immediate MoD boss Bryan Wells, who told him he would have to give evidence to the Commons Committee investigating the row. (Mr and Mrs Kelly, unsignalled)

However, it are the emotions attributed to Dr Kelly by Mrs Kelly and reported as such by The Sun (all signalled) that are predominant, as is made clear by the abundance of emotional descriptions employed in the story: anguished, betrayed, deep despair, shrunk within himself, broken heart, let down and betrayed, belittled, very much more taciturn, more difficult to talk to, more tense, more withdrawn, very, very unhappy, aged and lost weight, desperately unhappy, totally dismayed, very upset, his voice broke, very unhappy, not himself (He used the phrase ‚cut and run‛ which wasn’t like him.), exceedingly upset, rather knocked back, inconsolable, completely withdrawn (I could not comfort him. He seemed to withdraw into himself completely), extremely unhappy (He had faced a lot of terror in Iraq with guns pointing at him. But I have never known him to be that unhappy.), living a total nightmire (her husband later described his committee appearnce on July 15 as ‚a total nightmare‛), deeply hurt, belittled (her husband felt ‚he was being treated like a fly‛), ballistic.

Emotion concepts such as fear, anger, sadness, which are at stake in this text, are cognitively structured by a wide range of metaphoric and metonymic relations. Thus, it comes as no surprise that these resources are exploited by Mrs Kelly to describe her husband’s emotions: The most important conceptual metaphor that is realised linguistically is: the emotion is a force (e.g. broken heart, knocked back, devastated, deeply hurt). This has the effect of conceptualising Dr Kelly as a victim of circumstances and may be intended to evoke the addressee’s sympathy and pity (Naturally, it is in Mrs Kelly’s interest to show her husband’s innocence in the affair.). Additionally, the common metonymy physical effects stand for the emotion plays an important part in the description of Dr Kelly’s emotions (e.g. shrunk within himself, taciturn, difficult to talk to, withdrawn, tense, my heart sank, aged and lost weight, his voice broke). Such metonymies give an impression of Dr Kelly’s emotional state by alluding to the physical reactions attributed to certain emotions in folk knowledge. This is extremely wide-spread and has led Kövecses / Lakoff to postulate this metonymic relation as a general principle (Ungerer / Schmid 1996: 131).

As we have seen, most of the metaphorical and metonymic construals are explicitly attributed to Mrs Kelly; hence it may be argued that it is she (rather than The Sun) who establishes the construal of Dr Kelly as a victim as a powerful means to evoke sympathy (just as the businessmen in text 2 employed the industry is a person metaphor). However, it is still the newspaper which provides this construal by selecting her statements in such a way as to focus on this construal. If we compare the text in The Sun with the story in The Guardian („Mrs Kelly’s doubts on key claims“; 2.9.2003) we can see that the focus here is on the contradictions suggested by Mrs Kelly’s statements, and consequently on criticism of the government:

The emotions that are reported (totally let down and betrayed, ballistic, stress, devastated) are nothing like as frequent as in The Sun and the text in addition plays off the contradictions between Mrs Kelly’s statements and previous statements made by Scarlett (chairman of the joint intelligence committee), Blair and Hatfield (the MoD’s personnel director), which are not mentioned at all in The Sun story. The text in The New York Times (NYT), on the other hand („Widow of arms expert says he felt betrayed by bosses“; 2.9.2003) uses The Sun’s conceptualisation and focuses on the reported emotions rather than the inherent contradictions of the statements. It refers only very marginally to the battle construal (The death of Dr. Kelly and the questions raised about whether the British were misled about the reason going to war have plunged the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair into the worst crisis of its six years in power) and, interestingly enough, makes no comparisons whatsoever to President Bush’s similar situation at that time.[27] As above, the construal is encapsulated and signalled by the headline (Widow of Arms Expert Says He Felt Betrayed by Bosses), and is expressed by a variety of references to Dr Kelly’s and Mrs Kelly’s emotions:

· worried, confused (He couldn’t put two sentences together, he couldn’t talk at all)

· nervous/emotional/overwhelmed (several members of Parliament had to ask him to raise his voice so they could hear his responses.).

Again, several metaphorical and metonymic conceptualisations are involved. Thus, in this case, the differences in the construal of Mrs Kelly’s testimony cannot be reduced to the distinction between broadsheets and tabloids, but rather echo editorial decisions that may have been led by several considerations (including the newspaper’s editorial stance, audience considerations, space constraints etc.). However, the conclusions of my analysis are restricted to the case at hand and are to be taken as illustrative, rather than as representative; a systematic comparison of event-construals across broadsheets and tabloids may yield different results.

3. Summary and conclusion

News is embedded talk: within the news text generated by the author other speech events are embedded. Each has its own speaker, listener, and setting of time and place. For news producers there are two ways of reporting speech events in order to capture the reader’s interest:

1 focus on the speech event itself: construe the reported statements as one or several of the stages of a battle (or another concept) to dramatise the speech event

In the examples above, the choice of one of these alternatives in The Sun clearly depends on the emotional potential of the reported statements: the event-construal of text 1 and 2 (reporting political statements) takes option 1, whereas text 3 focuses on the emotional impact of the reported statements. This tendency has been confirmed by a preliminary study of a bigger newspaper corpus comprising 40 news stories where the number of neutral reporting verbs in four different news stories in ten newspapers (The Sun, The Daily Star, The Express, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent) seems to correlate with the emotional potential of the respective news story:

As can be seen from this table the percentage of neutral reporting verbs increases when the ‚emotional potential‛ (albeit a very subjective notion) of the topic decreases and vice versa. With a story about a car bomb in Iraq (involving many ‚emotional‛ references to injuries and damage) we find that 77% of all reporting verbs are neutral, whereas in a political story about a party conference only 33,3 % of all reporting verbs are neutral (however, this could also result from a propensity of British newspapers of providing more than usual evaluation where political parties are concerned). Whether this correlation is in fact a general tendency (or whether it is just an accidental correlation in this corpus and the news stories analysed here) should be explored with the help of large-scale corpus analyses. In any case, such event construals seem to fulfil several important functions, the most central ones being evaluation and dramatisation,[28]strategies used by newspapers for attracting certain kinds of audiences. (Whether or not such evaluations are then accepted by the audience depends crucially on the reader’s position; see Bruck / Stocker 1996).

Tapping into the linguistic devices related to basic conceptual metaphors is only one way of strategically building up event-construals, which are important cognitive devices that help the reader to create coherence. In fact, there is a lot of interaction between (verbal and non-verbal) signs which co-establish such construals (headlines, as we have seen, provide encapsulations of the event-construal of the news story for the reader). However, conceptual metaphors seem to be particularly important for establishing construals of ‚newsworthy‛ events in news stories in that they provide a conceptual-metaphoric representation of the world. This function has been rather neglected in linguistic studies on metaphors and certainly seems to deserve further attention in systematic textual analyses.

4. References

Ballmer, Thomas/Brennenstuhl, Waltraud (1980): Speech Act Classification. A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs, Berlin.

Bell, Allan (1999): „News stories as narratives“, in: Jaworski, Adam/Coupl/, Nikolas (edd.). The Discourse Reader, London/New York, p. 236-251. (originally published in Bell, Allan (1991): The Language of News Media. Oxford.)

Bruck, Peter A./Stocker, Günther (1996): Die ganz normale Vielfältigkeit des Lesens. Zur Rezeption von Boulevardzeitungen (Medien und Kommunikation 23), Münster.

Clayman, Steven E. (1990): „From talk to text: newspaper accounts of reporter-source interactions“, in: Media, Culture and Society 12, p. 79-103.

Coulthard, Malcolm (1994): „On analysing and evaluating written text“, in: Coulthard, Malcolm (ed.): Advances in Written Text Analysis, London/New York, p. 1-11.

Fairclough, Norman (1988): „Discourse representation in media discourse“, in: Sociolinguistics 17, p. 125-139.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982): „Frame semantics“, in: Yang, In-Seok (ed.): Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, Seoul, p. 111-137.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1985): „Frames and the semantics of understanding“, in: Quaderni di Semantica 6, p. 222-254.

Hardt-Mautner, Gerlinde (1995): „‚Only connect‛. critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics“, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/ucrel/papers/techpaper/vol6. pdf (last accessed 3 May 2005)

Hunston, Susan (2000): „Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts“, in Hunston, Susan/Thompson, Geoff (edd). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Oxford,p. 176-207.

Kress, Gunther / Theo van Leeuwen (1999): „Representation and interaction: designing the position of the viewer“, in: Jaworski, Adam/Coupland, Nikolas (edd.): The Discourse Reader, London/New York, p. 377-405. (originally published in: Kress, Gunther/van Leeuwen, Theo (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London/New York)

Lakoff, George (1992): „Metaphor and war: the metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf“, in: Pütz, Martin (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p. 463-481.

Lakoff, George/Turner, Mark (1989): More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago/London.

Lenk, Uta 2002: „Konzeptuelle Metaphern zu Sprache in literarischen Texten: Möglichkeiten einer interdisziplinären Anglistik“, in: AAA – Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 27, p. 51-68.

Ortony, Andrew (1993b): „Metaphor, language, and thought“, in: Ortony, Andrew (ed.): Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, p. 1-16.

Reddy, Michael (1993): „The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language“, in Ortony, Andrew (ed.): Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, p. 164-201.

Sinclair, John M. (1986): „Fictional worlds“, in: Coulthardt, Malcolm (ed.): Talking about Text, Birmingham, p. 43-60.

Steinhart, Eva/Kittay, Eric F. (1994): „Metaphor“, in: Asher, Ron E. (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford, p. 2452-2456.

Sticht, Thomas G. (1993). „Educational uses of metaphor“, in: Ortony, Andrew (ed.): Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, p. 621-632.

Thompson, Geoff/Yiyun, Ye (1991): „Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers“, in: Applied Linguistics 12, p. 365-82.

Ungerer, Friedrich (1997): „Emotions and emotional language in English and German news stories“, in: Niemeier, Susanne/Dirven, René (edd.): The Language of Emotions, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p. 382-432.

Ungerer, Friedrich/Schmid, Hans-Jörg (1996): An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, London.

Zelizer, Barbie (1989): „‚Saying‛ as collective practice: quoting and differential address in the news“, in: Text 9, p. 369-388.

OALD = Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (51995), J. Crowther (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Appendix: Texts (pictures excluded):

David Kelly's widow raised serious questions yesterday about the truthfulness of crucial evidence given to the Hutton inquiry by the prime minister's closest advisers over the Whitehall strategy which led to his exposure in the media.

In devastating testimony to the inquiry, Janice Kelly said her husband had felt "totally let down and betrayed" when he learned that a press statement had been issued which quickly brought about his unmasking.

Mrs Kelly said her husband had been given assurances by his bosses that a press statement would not be released. Dr Kelly did not know until after the event, she said.

Her evidence contradicts testimony to the inquiry by Tony Blair and his top officials.

Asked by Lord Hutton from whom Dr Kelly had received the assurances, she replied: "From his line manager, from all their seniors and from the people he had been interviewed by."

The inquiry has heard that the decision to issue a press statement - describing an unnamed individual who had volunteered the fact he had met the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan - was taken at a meeting in Mr Blair's study on the morning of July 8.

Among those present were the prime minister, Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair's communications chief, Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee.

Mr Scarlett told the inquiry that Dr Kelly had been told "a public statement would probably be made and that he had accepted that".

Mr Blair told the inquiry: "As far as I am aware, I think someone said this at the meetings, Dr Kelly was aware of that too. I think it was decided to do this by way of a public statement."

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary and Dr Kelly's political boss, has attempted to distance himself from the affair. He told the inquiry he was "not party to these discussions".

Mrs Kelly said her husband went "ballistic" when he was he was told to give televised evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.

He was told to appear before the committee on July 15 - two days his apparent suicide - after senior Whitehall officials concluded that he was the main source behind claims by Gilligan that the government's Iraqi weapons dossier had been "sexed up" at the behest of Downing Street.

As Mrs Kelly, who gave evidence by audio link to the inquiry room with a still picture of her on a screen, said that her husband's stress was com pounded by attempts to "belittle" him. At one point she said he was treated "like a fly".

Asked how she reacted to the description of her husband by Tom Kelly, one of the prime minister's spokesmen, as a "Walter Mitty" fantasist, she said she was "devastated". He was "totally the opposite. He was a very modest, shy, retiring guy".

Mrs Kelly's evidence also directly contradicts testimony to the inquiry by the MoD's per sonnel director, Richard Hatfield, who told the inquiry that he spoke to Dr Kelly just before the press statement was released on the evening of July 8.

Lord Hutton asked: "What was his attitude about that, when you spoke on the telephone?"

Mr Hatfield replied: "I think that both he and I conducted that conversation on the basis that his name would inevitably come out really quite quickly."

LONDON, Sept. 1 — David Kelly felt betrayed by the decision of his Defense Ministry bosses to make his name public as the source of a BBC report saying the government had inflated the case for war against Iraq, his widow testified today before the inquiry investigating his suicide.

"He said several times over coffee, over lunch, over afternoon tea, that he felt totally let down and betrayed," Janice Kelly, 58, said of her husband, a former United Nations arms inspector in Iraq who served the ministry as an expert on unconventional weapons.

"He had been led to believe that his name would not come into the public domain from his line manager, from all his seniors," she said. "He was so very upset about it."

On the day Dr. Kelly left their Oxfordshire home for the last time to take a walk, he looked "distracted and dejected," she said.

"He couldn't put two sentences together, he couldn't talk at all," she said. "I just thought he had a broken heart. He had shrunk into himself, just shrunk, but I had no idea at that stage of what he might do later."

The body of Dr. Kelly, 59, was found the next day, July 18, on a hiking path five miles away, with his left wrist slashed and a knife and an opened package of painkillers by his side. Mrs. Kelly identified the knife today as one he had had since his Boy Scout days and said the pills were ones she took for rheumatism.

The death of Dr. Kelly and the questions raised about whether the British were misled about the reason for going to war have plunged the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair into the worst crisis of its six years in power.

Within hours of the discovery of the body, Mr. Blair called for an independent inquiry led by Lord Hutton, a senior British judge, with the mission of finding whether the government's treatment of Dr. Kelly contributed to his death.

The hearings, now beginning their fourth week, have broadened their focus to examine the whole government information campaign before the war and have suggested that the government exaggerated intelligence assessments of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons to justify military action.

But today's session returned to the original purpose of examining what happened to Dr. Kelly after he told his managers privately in late June that he might be the source of a damning BBC report that Mr. Blair's aides were furiously denying.

The witnesses — Dr. Kelly's wife, one of his twin daughters, Rachel Kelly, 30, and his sister, Sarah Pape — testified to the courtroom in downtown London by video link from an undisclosed location so they would not have to face the packed courtroom. They painted a picture of a quiet, intensely private, hard-working man of disciplined habits who was thrown dangerously off balance by being thrust into the public eye.

Dr. Kelly became involved after informing his managers that he had met with the BBC reporter who broadcast the disputed report but said he had not made the accusations of the government's deliberately mixing false claims into its intelligence dossier — the central charge of the broadcast. Seeing a chance to discredit the report, the Ministry of Defense made his name public, and he ended up undergoing bruising questioning from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee in a televised hearing. Two days later, he took his life.

When the Defense Ministry advised him that his testimony would be televised, Mrs. Kelly said, "he was ballistic, he just didn't like that idea at all." Dr. Kelly had appeared overwhelmed and bewildered the day of the hearing, and several members of Parliament had to ask him to raise his voice so they could hear his responses.

Mrs. Kelly said she had learned of her husband's involvement on July 8 as they watched the news together: "The main story was that a source had identified itself and then immediately, David said to me, `It's me.' "

"My reaction was total dismay," she said. "My heart sank, and I was terribly worried" because he said that to her. She continued, "I knew that he was aware that his name would be in the public domain quite soon." He looked "desperately unhappy about it, really, really unhappy, totally dismayed."

DEFIANT Tony Blair last night torpedoed Gordon Brown's dreams by insisting he wants to stay in power for years to come.

He brushed aside calls to quit on the eve of making history by becoming the Labour Prime Minister who has served the longest single period. And he crushed the Chancellor's hopes of moving into No10 by saying: "There is a big job of work still to do and my appetite for doing it is undiminished." He even quipped his job was easier than the England cricket captain's in the wake of Nasser Hussein's resignation. The PM looked at ease as he mounted a vigorous defence of his record on Iraq and the public services. But he frankly admitted schools, hospitals and roads have not improved nearly enough under his leadership.

Mr Blair has been stung by claims that billions of taxpayers' cash is being frittered away on pen-pushers.

"It is vitally important, whatever issues have been dominating the news for the past year, that the public will judge us on the economy, the health service, schools, crime.

"Those are the big issues for the public. There is a balance to be struck between saying yes there is still a great deal to do and people saying nothing has happened at all. I accept there is an issue that we have to confront."

Mr Blair, who on Saturday beats Clement Atlee's 50-year record as leader of the longest-serving Labour, again declared he was right to have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein.

He admitted his decision had sent public trust in him into freefall — but it was worth it.

Mr Blair, who jets off to Barbados on holiday tomorrow, said "The vast majority of people in Iraq are delighted Saddam has gone.

"For all the difficulties they are overjoyed that their country has been liberated."

TOP bosses will turn on Tony Blair today — claiming failed reforms are crippling industry.

They will protest over taxes, red tape, pensions and creaky transport — and will threaten to move abroad unless he acts.

A delegation due to meet him at Downing Street includes HSBC bank chief Sir John Bond, Unilever boss Niall FitzGerald and BP's Lord Hogg.

One said: "It is the first time they have ganged up on him and he ignores what they say at his peril."

The members of the Multinational Chairmen's Group will complain their firms are being taxed to death

And they believe the extra millions are being wasted. Schools still fail to provide enough youngsters with the basic skills to hold down a job.

Meanwhile yesterday, left-wing union barons were accused of trying to drag Britain back to the dark days.

CBI leader Digby Jones said: "I wish trade unions would fight today's and tomorrow's battles and not yesterday's.

THE widow of arms expert David Kelly yesterday told of his last anguished days — and how he killed himself believing he had been betrayed by the MoD.

Janice Kelly, 58, said her husband sank into deep despair after being named as the source behind BBC claims that the Government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

And she told the Hutton Inquiry in London: "He shrunk within himself — I thought he had a broken heart.

"He said several times he felt totally let down and betrayed. I believe he meant the MoD because they had effectively let his name be known.”

She said he felt "belittled" by a process that saw him named publicly, driven from his home and quizzed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee live on TV.

Last night Whitehall insiders said Mrs Kelly's evidence had badly damaged the Ministry of Defence — and dealt a huge blow to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's bid to hang on to his job.

Mrs Kelly, giving evidence by audio link, painted a vivid picture of her husband as a shy workaholic whose world fell apart as he was thrust into the public spotlight against his will. She told how the nightmare began when Dr Kelly went to London on May 22 for a seemingly-innocuous briefing with BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. She said: "I recognised the name but he never told me anything about his meetings. They were usually briefings."

Seven days later Gilligan's claim that a source had told him Alastair Campbell had "sexed up" the dossier ignited a huge political row. On June 30, Dr Kelly wrote to his bosses at the MoD admitting he had spoken to Gilligan. Mrs Kelly said she was unaware of the letter — but she and her family HAD noticed a change in Dr Kelly.

She said: "He became very much more taciturn, more difficult to talk to, more tense, more withdrawn.

"He seemed very, very unhappy. We were all worried about him. He seemed to have aged and lost weight."

Mrs Kelly told how the pressure dramatically increased a few days later as she and Dr Kelly watched a Channel 4 news report that said an MoD official had admitted speaking to Gilligan. She added: "Immediately David said, 'It's me.' My heart sank. "He seemed desperately unhappy about it. Totally dismayed. He mentioned at this stage that he had a reprimand from the MoD, but they had not been unsupportive. Those were his words."

Mrs Kelly described how Sunday Times journalist Nick Rufford, a friend of 59-year-old Dr Kelly's, later called at their house in Southmoor, Oxfordshire.

She said her husband had a five-minute conversation with the reporter before she heard him say: "Please leave."

Dr Kelly told her Rufford had said they were about to be besieged by journalists and offered to take them to a hotel so they could tell their side of the story.

She added: "He was very upset and his voice broke. He had the impression from Nick that the gloves were off and he was going to use his name in an article."

Mrs Kelly said her husband had been told by the MoD that he would NOT be named. She added: "He received assurances. That's why he was very unhappy."

Mrs Kelly told how they suddenly got a panic call from the MoD Press Office urging them to leave their home immediately because journalists were on their way.

Mrs Kelly added: "He used the phrase 'cut and run' which wasn't like him. He was exceedingly upset." She said her husband did not mention that the MoD had made him any offers of support.

The couple broke their journey in Weston-super-Mare and spent a sleepless night in a hotel.

The next morning Dr Kelly was named in newspapers. There were several references to his "lowly status". Mrs Kelly said: "He was rather knocked back by that. I could not comfort him. He seemed to withdraw into himself completely." In the next hours she tried to calm him as they visited tourist spots in Cornwall.

But the uneasy peace was shattered by a phone call from his immediate MoD boss Bryan Wells, who told him he would have to give evidence to the Commons Committee investigating the row.

"He had faced a lot of terrors in Iraq with guns pointing at him. But I have never known him to be that unhappy."

Mrs Kelly said her husband later described his committee appearance on July 15 as "a total nightmare".

She went to lie down and heard Dr Kelly answer the phone. She said: "I assumed it was the MoD, but I couldn't be sure."

She said that later he left to go for a walk. When he wasn't back after 25 minutes she started to worry.

Rachel and Sian, two of the couple's three daughters, came to the house to look for their father when they learned he had not returned home.

Finally, at 11.40pm, Mrs Kelly rang the police and a full-scale hunt was launched. The next day, July 18, she was told his body had been found with a slashed wrist in woods.

A knife he had owned since the Boy Scouts was nearby. Mrs Kelly said the painkiller Co-proxamol found with her husband's body were from her supply for her arthritis.

The inquiry heard Dr Kelly had been "deeply hurt" to find Foreign Secretary Jack Straw considered him "too junior" to offer technical support when they had both attended an earlier hearing of the Select Committee.

The inquiry also heard the Kelly family were furious at reports that branded the scientist "a Walter Mitty character".

The inquiry heard Dr Kelly had believed Saddam had WMDs — and had hidden them somewhere under the desert.

His widow revealed that after his death she found a document from the Government's honours committee. It was marked confidential and dated May 9 with a handwritten note saying: "How about David Kelly, Iraq is topical?" Lord Hutton asked if she thought an honour was being suggested.

She replied: "It may well have been a knighthood, I don't really know." Mrs Kelly also denied she and her husband had quarrelled just before his death.

[1] For a background to contemporary theories of metaphor from Aristotle onwards see Steinhart and Kittay (1994). For a variety of studies on metaphor from philosophical, linguistic, psychological and educational point of views see Ortony (1993a).

[2] The claim that it is not only language but our thought/reality that is structured metaphorically is a disputable one and relates to the much-discussed Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativism. However, I do not want to go into a lengthy discussion of this subject, because I think that the concept of conceptual metaphor proves useful even if this claim is not accepted.

[3] The notion of conceptual metaphor hence comprises both types of metaphor (the imaginative and the ‚dead‛ type), because both can express the same structural metaphor. Thus, the metaphor theories are buildings is realised both by the conventionalised expression He has constructed a theory and by the imaginative expression His theory has thousands of little rooms and long, winding corridors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 53; see also Lakoff and Turner 1989 for an analysis of conceptual metaphors in poetry along this line). Let me point out that I am not interested in this paper in the degree of conventionalisation or ‚figurativeness‛ of the linguistic metaphors discussed, but assume that there is a cline of conventionalisation involved, which may differ from speaker to speaker.

[4] Sometimes such research is accused of relying solely on intuition and decontextualised examples. However, there is a growing body of research based on actual usage or dictionary information (e.g. the METALUDE database accessible at http://www.ln.edu.hk/lle/cwd/project01/web/introduction.html). Other linguistic research is interested in using conceptual metaphors in TESL, the problem of metaphors in translation, and corpus evidence for conceptual metaphors (see e.g. research mentioned on the University of Birmingham’s Metaphor UK web-page (http://www.eisu.bham.ac.uk/muk/).

[5] Cf. Fillmore (1985) for more examples of this kind.

[6] Langacker calls this scanning (cf. Langacker 1987: 102).

[7] This is one of several possible textualisations of the pre-textual ideational event. For observations on textualisations of the pre-textual ideational see Coulthard (1994).

[8] This is nothing other than Lakoff and Johnson’s argument is war metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 4), but Ungerer and Schmid’s label is more suitable for my purposes (e.g. the stages below seem more suitable for talk about battles than for talk about war). The metaphor is also related to Ballmer and Brennenstuhl’s model of verbal struggle (Ballmer / Brennenstuhl 1980: 21). For other common metaphors concerning language see Reddy (1993) and Lenk (2002); for alternative metaphors for argument see Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 97).

[9] In fact, these expressions could also be regarded as realisations of the metaphor words are weapons, but this is a subcategory of argument is a battle (Lenk 2002: 56) and the explanation of these expressions via the superordinate category argument is a battle allows us to relate these linguistic expressions to the stages of a battle.

[10] The example sentences and the paraphrases are all taken from the OALD. The emphasis is mine.

[11] Although this expression does not belong to the military domain per se (but rather to the world of insects), it relates to the argument is a battle metaphor in that it represents Tony Blair as ‚wounded‛ by remarks.

[12] Kress / van Leeuwen (1999) introduce concepts into linguistics which have been used somewhat similarly in research on portraiture.

[13] It hence belongs to the category of „author’s behaviour interpretation“ verbs where the writer interprets the reported speaker’s attitude/purpose in uttering the reported proposition (Thompson / Yiyun 1991: 373).

[14] This is also indicated by the lower reliability of claim (used for reporting Tony Blair’s opponents’ statements in: Mr Blair has been stung by claims that billions of taxpayers’ cash is being frittered away on pen-pushers), which entails the writer’s scepticism.

[15] Little of this event-construal is in this case established by Tony Blair himself (i.e. by his remarks) and even the quotes have been selected by the newspaper (and it is not clear in how far they correspond to Tony Blair’s original remarks. Compare Fairclough (1988) on an analysis of how ‚original‛ discourse is represented in reported speech in newspapers). The majority of the construal is hence done by the writer(s).

[16] This personification is an extension of an ontological metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 34).

[17] I am employing these terms roughly as Fairclough (1988) uses them, namely, to refer to the explicit marking of propositions as reported (via the use of reporting expressions or quotation marks etc: signalled) and to unmarked propositions (unsignalled). With unsignalled propositions it is normally only possible to hypothesise about their status as reported discourse or writer’s discourse (unless you are in possession of a transcript of the ‚original‛ discourse). Sometimes, however, the context strongly suggests one of these possibilities.

[18] I am using the terms averral/averred and attribution/attributed like Sinclair (1986) and Hunston (2000). Averred pieces of language originate with the author(s) of the news story; attributed (i.e. reported) discourse originates with someone who is not the author. Consequently, the responsibility for the propositional content of averred propositions is with the author, whereas in attributed propositions it is with the attributee. (Attributed propositions thus may be signalled or unsignalled in Fairclough’s 1988 terms)

[19] The interpretation of the illocutionary force of the utterance as a threat is an averall (another „behaviour interpretation“ on the part of the writer in Thompson and Yiyun’s (1991) terms or an illocutionary verb in traditional terms); the threat itself (to move abroad) is an attribution.

[20] Note that these involve the ontological metaphor evidence is a substance. Such simple ontological metaphors will in general not be mentioned in the textual analysis undertaken here.

[21] Quoting someone who quotes someone else is double hearsay (Zelizer 1989: 380), both types of reported discourse are represented either via indirect discourse, direct discourse, slipping, and narrative reports of speech acts (Fairclough 1988). This gives the text a very complex structure of embedding, which, however, will be disregarded in my analysis.

[22] I am indebted to Charles Owen for the latter observation.

[23] Compare Bell’s observations on the headline as „an abstract of the abstract“, a device by which the audience „can get the main point of a story“ (Bell 1999: 239).

[24] In the following I shall use emotion as a broad cover term for feelings, emotional states, beliefs, attitudes and related notions.

[25] Those that are unsignalled, are ambivalent (Fairclough 1988: 131) and do not allow readers to distinguish clearly between averalls and attributions. On examining the transcript (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/09/02/September1AM.pdf) we find that they report the following utterances by Mrs Kelly:

‚In fact I was physically sick several times at this stage because he looked so desperate‛

‚Then I began to get rather worried‛

‚We had a rather sleepless night‛

The proposition the uneasy peace was shattered is not mentioned explicitly in the transcript and is thus pure writer interpretation.

[26] Contradict belongs to a group of reporting expressions („writer acts“) that covertly refer to the writer’s interpretation of the propositional content of reported discourse (Thompson and Yiyun 1991: 370).

[27] The NYT also mentions that the hearings … have broadened their focus to examine the whole government information campaign before the war and have suggested that the government exaggerated intelligence assessments of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons to justify military action. But note the low degree of reliability inherent in suggest and the NYT’s allusion to the original purpose of examining what happened to Dr. Kelly in the following sentence.

[28] Other means of dramatisation include the use of intensifiers (which are also abundant in the above texts) as well as other strategies to evoke the reader’s interest and emotions (for the latter see Ungerer 1997).

[PDF]

metaphorik.de 09/2005