War metaphors are ubiquitous in discussions of everything from political campaigns to battles with cancer to wars against crime, drugs, poverty, and even salad. Why are warfare metaphors so common, and what are the potential benefits and costs to using them to frame important social and political issues? We address these questions in a detailed case study by reviewing the empirical literature on the subject and by advancing our own theoretical account of the structure and function of war metaphors in (...) public discourse. We argue that war metaphors are omnipresent because they draw on basic and widely shared schematic knowledge that efficiently structures our ability to reason and communicate about many different types of situations, and they reliably express an urgent, negatively valenced emotional tone that captures attention and motivates action. Nevertheless, we find that the meaning of war metaphors is intimately tied to the context in which they are used, which may result in either positive or negative outcomes, depending on the situation. Thus, blanket statements about whether or not a war frame is useful are misguided or overly constraining. Here we situate our case study results in relation to popular theories of metaphoric representation and processing and offer some guidelines for using a war framing effectively. This work helps illuminate the complex, dynamic, and nuanced functions of metaphor in cognition in general, and in public discourse in particular. (shrink)

There is mounting evidence that language comprehension involves the activation of mental imagery of the content of utterances (; ; ; ; ; ; ). This imagery can have motor or perceptual content. Three main questions about the process remain under‐explored, however. First, are lexical associations with perception or motion sufficient to yield mental simulation, or is the integration of lexical semantics into larger structures, like sentences, necessary? Second, what linguistic elements (e.g., verbs, nouns, etc.) trigger mental simulations? Third, how (...) detailed are the visual simulations that are performed? A series of behavioral experiments address these questions, using a visual object categorization task to investigate whether up‐ or down‐related language selectively interferes with visual processing in the same part of the visual field (following ). The results demonstrate that either subject nouns or main verbs can trigger visual imagery, but only when used in literal sentences about real space—metaphorical language does not yield significant effects—which implies that it is the comprehension of the sentence as a whole and not simply lexical associations that yields imagery effects. These studies also show that the evoked imagery contains detail as to the part of the visual field where the described scene would take place. (shrink)

How do we understand time and other entities we can neither touch nor see? One possibility is that we tap into our concrete, experiential knowledge, including our understanding of physical space and motion, to make sense of abstract domains such as time. To examine how pervasive an aspect of cognition this is, we investigated whether thought about a nonliteral type of motion called fictive motion (FM; as in The road runs along the coast) can influence thought about time. Our results (...) suggest that FM uses the same structures evoked in understanding literal motion, and that these literal aspects of FM influence temporal reasoning. (shrink)

Our study seeks a better understanding of how Spanish-speaking cancer patients communicate about their personal experiences with cancer. We examine the use of metaphor in narratives contributed to an online forum for Spanish speakers afflicted with various types of cancer. Specifically, we identify, quantify and discuss three categories of metaphors: violence, journey and other. Our study expands prior work on cancer communication by examining a language other than English, by focusing on how cancer victims communicate among themselves, and by examining (...) how cancer narratives discuss concerns about personal experiences with this disease. Research thus far has focused on English. The work also expands on what is known about how people use the metaphor ‘in the wild’. (shrink)

Many metaphor theorists argue that our mental experience of time is grounded in our understanding of space, including motion through space. Results from recent experiments – in which people think about motion, which in turn influences their thinking about time – support this position. Still, many questions remain about the nature of the metaphorical connection between time and space. Can the mere suggestion of motion influence how people reason about time, and if so, when and how? Three experiments investigated how (...) thinking about “abstract” motion through sequences of numbers or letters would influence reasoning about time. Our results extend earlier psychological work on the link between time and space by showing that even motion in non-physical domains can influence temporal reasoning. The results provide further evidence that metaphorical understanding is grounded in our everyday physical and conceptual experience. (shrink)

In this study, we investigate the conceptual structure of the metaphor “SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITY.” The results of four experiments suggest a tight mental link between similarity and proximity. Two experiments revealed that people judge entities to be more similar to each other when they are placed closely in space, while two other experiments showed that entities are judged to be closer to each other when they are thought to be more similar. We discuss this bidirectional metaphor transfer effect in light (...) of approaches to metaphor understanding, including the long-standing view that metaphorical mappings are assumed to be asymmetrical. We also consider the implications of this bi-directional mapping for high level cognition. (shrink)

This work examines the use and understanding of metaphor in wildfire discourse. We focus on the framing of wildfires as monsters, seen in statements such as “Monster wildfire rages in Colorado” and “Two monster wildfires in Northern California are slowly being tamed,” which reflect a “wildfire is monster” metaphor. Study 1 analyzes how and when this phrase is used in TV news reports of wildfires, and Study 2A and Study 2B investigate how it influences reasoning about risks associated with wildfire. (...) The results show that metaphor is widely used in framing news reports about significant wildfires, and that its use influences how people reason about them. The work is part of a project aimed at developing better ways to communicate about risks related to natural events and climate change. (shrink)

Uncontrolled wildfires present ever-increasing risks. To respond effectively, we must communicate clearly and compellingly. This is where the scientific study of metaphor can help. Metaphor is the use of one domain to describe or think about another, a process that is often crucial for understanding phenomena that are unusually large, abstract, or complex – phenomena such as wildfires. Here, we describe two metaphorical framings that are widespread in wildfire communication: wildfire as an intentional, hungry beast; and wildfire as an enemy (...) to defeat in war. We then explore how each metaphor makes certain approaches to wildfire management seem natural, while simultaneously making it difficult to understand or appreciate others. Metaphor thus offers an integrated framework for thinking and communicating about wildfire management on multiple scales. (shrink)