Lexical Metaphor as Judgment: Attitudinal positioning of editorial writers in business newspapers

IF 0.3 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
H. Katajamäki, M. Koskela
{"title":"Lexical Metaphor as Judgment: Attitudinal positioning of editorial writers in business newspapers","authors":"H. Katajamäki, M. Koskela","doi":"10.24989/FS.V40I3-4.1479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on appraisal theory, this paper aims to analyze how the attitudinal positioning of writers of the editorials of business newspapers can be construed by means of lexical metaphors. The focus is on judgment, the evaluation of human actors, because it indicates the subjective presence of a writer. Based on a dataset o3f 32 editorials of two Finnish business newspapers, the results show that the lexical metaphors used during assessments are mostly dead metaphors, representing the source domains of competition and sports, humans and animals, and war, battle, and violence. The most common targets of judgment are institutional actors that are described by the meanings of capacity, tenacity, and propriety. Economic actors are mostly evaluated positively while political actors are mostly evaluated negatively. Cases where economic actors are evaluated negatively and where individual persons are mentioned are unusual but do arise. In general, judgments in editorials reflect the shared values and ideological beliefs of the papers and their readers. Lexical metaphors offer a subtle way of praising and criticizing institutions and individual people, which makes them an important way of communicating as expected in a discourse community.","PeriodicalId":41240,"journal":{"name":"Fachsprache-Journal of Professional and Scientific Communication","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fachsprache-Journal of Professional and Scientific Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24989/FS.V40I3-4.1479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing on appraisal theory, this paper aims to analyze how the attitudinal positioning of writers of the editorials of business newspapers can be construed by means of lexical metaphors. The focus is on judgment, the evaluation of human actors, because it indicates the subjective presence of a writer. Based on a dataset o3f 32 editorials of two Finnish business newspapers, the results show that the lexical metaphors used during assessments are mostly dead metaphors, representing the source domains of competition and sports, humans and animals, and war, battle, and violence. The most common targets of judgment are institutional actors that are described by the meanings of capacity, tenacity, and propriety. Economic actors are mostly evaluated positively while political actors are mostly evaluated negatively. Cases where economic actors are evaluated negatively and where individual persons are mentioned are unusual but do arise. In general, judgments in editorials reflect the shared values and ideological beliefs of the papers and their readers. Lexical metaphors offer a subtle way of praising and criticizing institutions and individual people, which makes them an important way of communicating as expected in a discourse community.
作为判断的词汇隐喻:商业报纸社论作者的态度定位
本文旨在运用评价理论,分析如何利用词汇隐喻来解释商业报纸社论作者的态度定位。重点是判断,对人类演员的评价,因为它表明了作家的主观存在。基于两家芬兰商业报纸的32篇社论的数据集,结果表明,在评估过程中使用的词汇隐喻大多是死隐喻,代表了竞争和体育、人类和动物、战争、战斗和暴力的来源领域。判断的最常见目标是由能力、坚韧和适当的含义所描述的制度行为者。经济行为者大多得到正面评价,而政治行为者大多得到负面评价。负面评价经济行为者和提及个人的情况并不常见,但确实会出现。一般来说,社论中的判断反映了报纸及其读者的共同价值观和意识形态信仰。词汇隐喻提供了一种微妙的赞扬和批评机构和个人的方式,这使它们成为话语社区中预期的重要交流方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信