Advertisement

Metaphor, Framing, and Reasoning

  • John Douard
  • Pamela D. Schultz
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 53)

Abstract

This book is an analysis of the metaphorical structure of our responses to certain types of violent crimes. We focus on sex offenses, and specifically on child sexual abuse. By “responses” we include not just those of the criminal justice system in the United States, but also our everyday social responses to sex offenses as represented in the media. Sex offenders, we argue, have all the characteristics of metaphorical monsters. In this chapter, we develop an account of metaphor that will help us build an analysis of two metaphors that will occupy us throughout the book: the monster and the predator. We discuss these metaphors initially as illustrations of our account of metaphor and framing. In later chapters we examine the history and cognitive work of the metaphor of the monster in much greater detail. There is no comparable history available of the predator metaphor, but we will argue that the two metaphors have historically been linked when they are used to represent criminals.

Keywords

Child Sexual Abuse Literal Meaning Pretend Play False Belief Task Mass Noun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bates, A.W. 2005. Emblematic monsters: Unnatural conceptions and deformed births in early modern Europe. Amsterdam: Rodolpi Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. 2000. Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bermudez, J.L. 2010. Cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, M. 1962. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brandom, R. 1998. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. 2008. Between saying and doing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, K. 1966. Philosophy of literary form. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, Kenneth. 1984a. Attitudes toward history. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, K. 1984b. Permanence and change, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. 1978. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dynes, R.R., and H. Rodriguz. 2007. Finding and framing Katrina: The social construction of disaster. In The sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a modern catastrophe, ed. D.L. Brunsma, D. Overfelt, and J.S. Picou. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Fillmore, C.J. 1977. Frame semantics. In Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, ed. D. Geeraerts. New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Geary, J. 2011. I is an other: The secret life of metaphor and how it shapes the way we see the world. New York: HarpersCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Goffman, E. 1976. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, D. 1968, 1976. Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, H.P. 1991. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hanafi, Z. 2000. The monster in the machine: Magic, medicine, and the marvelous in the time of the scientific revolution. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hymers, M. 1998. Metaphor, cognitivity, and meaning-holism. Philosophy and Rhetoric 31(4): 266–282.Google Scholar
  19. Kittay, E. 1987. Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Minsky, M. 1977. Frame system theory. In Thinking: Readings in cognitive science, ed. Philip Nicholas Johnson-Laird and Peter Cathcart Wason, 355–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Petruck, M.R.L. 1996. Frame semantics. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, and C. Bulcaen, 1–13. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, relativism and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stafford, B. 2009. Echo objects: The cognitive work of images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stevens, W. 1997. Anecdote of the jar, in collected poetry and prose. New York: Library of America.Google Scholar
  28. Tierney, K., C. Bevc, and E. Kuligowski. 2006. Metaphors matter: Disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in hurricane Katrina. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604(March): 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner, V. 1970. The forest of symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, R.W. 2002. Everyday bioinformatics for neuroscientists: From maps to microarrays. www.nervenet.org/papers/bioinformatics_02/pdfs/Williams.pdf.
  31. Wood, D. 2010. Rethinking the power of maps. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Douard
    • 1
  • Pamela D. Schultz
    • 2
  1. 1.New BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.AlfredUSA

Personalised recommendations