CHAPTER METAPHORS IN BRITISH MEDIA DISCOURSE: THE GUARDIAN & THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 5.1 Introduction: Metaphorical Evaluation in British Media Discourse British broadsheets such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Times are mainstream daily newspapers with a wide circulation. Just like in the American context, British broadsheets are seen as “the fourth estate”, where the newspaper owners and advertisers are deigned to be free from government interference. However, it is important to note that news proprietors have the “power to influence the content, the political stance and the editorial perspective of the paper” through the appointment of senior editorial staff (Bednarek, 2006, p.13). Hence, the metaphorical evaluation carried out in this thesis essentially aims to uncover the aggregate political stance and editorial perspective of The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph in order to capture the effect that differing political affiliations assert on the use of metaphor. However, it must be clearly stated that the claims made in this thesis are limited to the findings of these specific corpora. This is simply due to the fact that it is virtually impossible to determine the stance of a newspaper from narrow sets of corpora on a limited range of issues. Further research over a range of significant socio-political issues need to be conducted in order to obtain the necessary statistical reliability to make these claims. According to Bednarek (2006, p.191), news comprises the following four parameters. Firstly, news is essentially embedded speech with various sources of attribution in order to communicate authenticity. Secondly, 193 newspapers “express a certain emotive stance on events they are reporting in order to attract readers”. Thirdly, it is concerned with the unexpected and with what contrasts with the norm in order to cater to market forces and the profit motive. Fourthly, news stories use “evaluations of reliability in order to make predictions as well as to mitigate assertions”. Taken in tandem, these four parameters point unequivocally towards the significant influence wielded by the editorial perspective in the portrayal of the actors in the news event. This is where the differences in metaphorical evaluations can reveal the subtle influences that political affiliation and cultural perspectives have on the target discourse. For the metaphorical analysis of the Guardian, a corpus of 188,788 words comprising 250 articles is used. The corresponding analysis in the Daily Telegraph was carried out using a corpus of 156, 459 words, also comprising 250 articles. The range of top-10 statistically salient semantic domains with respect to the in-built BNC-Informative Writing sampler within WMatrix is captured in Figures 5.1-5.2 respectively. Fig. 5.1 - USAS Semantic Tagset (A snapshot of the Top-10 semantic domains for the GCorpus) 194 Fig. 5.2 - USAS Semantic Tagset (A snapshot of the Top-10 semantic domains for the TTCorpus) In order to ensure consistency and statistical validity in this comparative analysis, the semantic domains and lexical items selected for this analysis of British broadsheet discourse will be the same as those analysed in the American broadsheet discourse from Chapter 4. As is the convention for this thesis, the corpus and the accompanying rank within the semantic domain are captured in the accompanying brackets after the semantic domains. The empirically suggested USAS semantic domains and lexical items selected for analysis are given below: 1. Substances & Materials: Liquid (G_1/TT_1) 2. Speech: Communicative (G_6/TT_8) 3. Damaging and Destroying (G_7/TT_6) 4. Green Issues (G_5/TT_10) 5.2 The British Perspective: An analysis of the interaction of metaphor categories in the G-Corpus and the TT-Corpus Table 5.1 provides an aggregate view of the BP oil spill metaphorically embodied by the G-corpus and the TT-corpus. All the conceptual metaphors 195 were identified and formulated using the IICM. The categories of “WAR/CRIME/THREAT”, “BP/ OIL INDUSTRY” (Sympathetic/ Non-Sympathetic Portrayals), “US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION” (Sympathetic/ Non-Sympathetic Portrayals) form the basis for an aggregate view of the dominant metaphor strands as well as the metaphorical evaluation of the key figures in the BP Oil Spill. Table 5.1 – An aggregate internal comparison of significant metaphors in British Broadsheets (G & TT) Conceptual Key G TT (Types/ Tokens) (Types/ Tokens) THE OIL SPILL WAR/ CRIME/CONFLICT BP/ OIL INDUSTRY DEBTOR/CRIMINAL / ENEMY/INCOMPETENCE/ PRAGMATIC OPPORTUNIST/RECKLESS/ OUTDATED/ GREEDY/ (PERSONIFICATION: NEGATIVE) BP/ OIL INDUSTRY FIGHTER/ CONTRITE CHILD/ SCAPEGOAT/ ENTREPRENEUR/ PHILANTHROPIST/ COSMOPOLITAN ENTITY/ INVITED GUEST/ ACQUITTED DEFENDANT/VICTIM/PREY (PERSONIFICATION: POSITIVE) THE US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CRIMINAL/ INCOMPETENT (PERSONIFICATION: NEGATIVE) THE US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMPETENT LEADER/ EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCER (PERSONIFICATION: POSITIVE) 47.5% 42.3% 64.4% 68.1% 14.1% 21.4% 18.8% 22.6% 21.9% 25.3% 30.1% 36.4% 8.3% 9.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.5% 7.3% 2.3% 7.1% Based on the macro-overview of these four empirically significant USAS domains and the accompanying key lexical items, three general metaphorical evaluative strands can be discerned: • Firstly, the predominance of a sympathetic portrayal of BP can be discerned in both the G-corpus and the TT-corpus. This seems to indicate the foregrounding of nationalistic interests where BP is a major economic contributor in the British business landscape. Thus, it 196 is significant to note the TT-corpus’ subtle foregrounding of the range of pragmatic pro-business considerations behind the US Government’s role in the BP disaster. This seems to be an effort at establishing a universal framework that favours pragmatism in order to mitigate BP’s role in the disaster. • Secondly, there is a clear pre-eminence of the “WAR/CRIME/CONFLICT” conceptual key in the TT-corpus when compared to the G-corpus. A closer examination of this conceptual key shows that the TT-corpus seems to adopt a more nationalistic and critical approach in the portrayal of the US Government/ Obama Administration’s role in the disaster. It also predominantly adopts a pragmatic approach that conceptualises the notion of BUSINESS as a WAR/ STRATEGY/ GAME OF SURVIVAL. A more textured, in-depth analysis will take place the following sections in this chapter. • Finally, an overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the US Government’s involvement can be seen in the “GREEN ISSUES” Semantic Domain, possibly reflecting a third-party’s concern with the environment. This contrasts significantly with the American broadsheets’ focus on the extent of the extent of the economic damage to the state, rather than on the lofty ideals of environmentalism and conservation. This is a clear indication of how context and core national concerns influence the nature and coverage of the corresponding broadsheet content. A notable parallel with the metaphorical framing of the disaster in the American broadsheets would be the preponderance of Ontological 197 Metaphors (specifically, the personification of the corporate entities involved as well as the “oil” spillage itself) and Structural Metaphors in both corpora. The differences in statistical distribution can be seen in Tables 5.2-5.3 below. Table 5.2 – An overview of the Metaphor Type Distribution in the G-Corpus G-Corpus (202 Metaphorical TYPES out of 188,788 words) Metaphor Types Types Distribution (%) Structural Metaphors 28 13.9% Ontological Metaphors 126 62.4% Orientational Metaphors 10 5.0% Analogical/Image Metaphors 34 16.8% Table 5.3 – An overview of the Metaphor Type Distribution in the TT-Corpus TT-Corpus (147 Metaphorical Types out of 156,459 words) Metaphor Types Types Distribution (%) Structural Metaphors 6.1% Ontological Metaphors 83 56.5% Orientational Metaphors 6.1% Analogical/Image Metaphors 22 15.0% The G-corpus has a marginally higher metaphorical density of 202 metaphor types out of 188,788 words, whilst the TT-corpus contains a proportionally comparable 147 metaphor tokens out of a smaller base of 156,459 words. The specific metaphorical embodiments and their distribution will be further expounded in this chapter. However, it is interesting to note the overwhelming predominance of Ontological Metaphors (specifically Personification) in both sets of corpora. This preference for Personification over other types of metaphor is clearly explained by Charteris-Black (2005, p.174) where personification is seen as “a way of making abstract ideological issues meaningful and is therefore a major leadership strategy during times of national crisis” in both America and Britain. This seems to reflect the role of metaphor in systematically 198 representing the associations between the parties and corporate entities involved in the disaster in the form of interactions between individuals with particular behavioural traits e.g. BP IS A REPENTANT CRIMINAL MAKING RESTITUTION, BP IS A VICTIM OF UNFAIR POLICIES, THE US GOVERNMENT IS A INCOMPETENT LAW ENFORCER, THE OIL IS THE ENEMY, THE ENVIRONMENT IS A PATIENT etc. For both corpora, the personification of the entities in the BP Oil Spill fall into two broad categories: A sympathetic view of the entities involved (e.g. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A WAR GENERAL, BP IS A REPENTANT CRIMINAL) or a negative, non-sympathetic view of the same entities (e.g. THE US GOVERNMENT IS A CORRUPT PERSON, BP IS AN UNSCRUPULOUS BUSINESSMAN). The overarching CONFLICT scenario seems to indicate the need for a strong law enforcer to unify and bring social order to this unruly group of characters for the sake of a positive resolution. Structural metaphors also play a significant role in structuring the understanding of the readers. The predominance of a nationalistic agenda ranks high across all the four corpora examined in this thesis. The CONFLICT scenario (specifically embodied by the POLITICS IS WAR/ BUSINESS IS WAR metaphor keys) seems to be a unifying thread throughout the respective broadsheets. The nationalistic elements in the British corpora are brought to the fore in the activated mental model where British interests (British investments, a British-based company and British pride) are portrayed as being under relentless attack by an overwhelming external force (THE US GOVERNMENT IS A HUNTER/ AGGRESSOR). This essentially foregrounds the framework of CONFLICT (WAR) as a systematic explanation of the causes and solutions to the economic and social problems faced by the aggrieved parties 199 on both sides of the divide. This CONFLICT scenario has potentially created a distorted view of the socio-political and economic repercussions to both British and American societies by negating the option of a compromise or middle ground. For the remaining sections of this analysis, I will analyse the general metaphorical evaluative strands identified above through a close examination of the metaphor types and embodiments. These differences will then be expounded through an in-depth analysis of the expanded contexts of selected segments in order to systematically uncover the metaphorical evaluations and ideologies represented by the G-corpus and the TT-corpus. These expanded contextual analyses are vital as statistics and numbers not reveal the metaphorical textures behind how events are covered. The analysis for this chapter will take the following structure: • A comparative analysis of the sympathetic portrayal of BP. This refers to the foregrounding of British nationalistic interests in the G and TTcorpus (“Damage”/ “History”/ “Rhetoric”/ “Environment”) • A comparative analysis WAR/CRIME/CONFLICT of the pre-eminence of the conceptual keys in the TT & G-Corpus (“Oil_Modifies”) 200 5.3. The foregrounding of nationalistic interests: The sympathetic portrayal of BP in the British Broadsheets. It is interesting to note the more significant statistical distribution in the portrayal of BP’s role in the oil spill for the TT-corpus across the target lexical items. This can be seen in Table 5.1 where 36.4% of the metaphor tokens mined from the TT-corpus provide a sympathetic portrayal of BP compared with 22.6% of metaphors that portray BP negatively. On the other hand, even though the G-corpus has a significantly lesser proportion of positive BP portrayals in terms of metaphorical tokens (25.3%), there is also a clear slant in mitigating BP’s agency in the entire matter (only 14.1% of the metaphor types in the G-corpus portray BP negatively). This can be attributed to the strong pro-business, pragmatic inclination that is embodied by the TTcorpus, where even though the virtues of BP are extolled, the pragmatic focus on actually resolving the tension between allies takes BP’s role in the disaster into full account. This is further substantiated through the proliferation of the WAR/CRIME/THREAT conceptual keys that are significantly more pronounced in the TT-Corpus (68.1%) than in the G-Corpus (42.3%). This is due to fact that the bulk of the WAR/CRIME/THREAT metaphors in the TT-corpus falls under the metaphor key of BUSINESS IS CONFLICT/ A GAME OF SURVIVAL rather than in direct reference to the actions of the US Government and BP. This clearly shows the ideological disjunction between the two sets of corpora. The TT-corpus seems to place a heavy emphasis on the pragmatic, probusiness side of the issue with BP portrayed as a key ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTOR in the British economy. In contrast, the G-corpus seems to 201 focus more on the nationalistic and ideological aspects of the conflict, foregrounding the two predominant reciprocal ontological metaphors (BP IS A VICTIM/ RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE CITIZEN and the US GOVERNMENT IS AN INCOMPETENT PERSON/CORRUPT PERSON). 5.3.1. The Foregrounding of Nationalistic Interests in the G-corpus (Damaging and Destroying_7_G: ‘Damage’) Figure 5.3 shows an amalgamated concordance mined from the Gcorpus based on empirical suggestion by the Sketch Engine for the statistically salient lexical item “Damage” (Damaging and Destroying_7_G). Fig. 5.3. Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Economic’/ ‘Political’/‘Reputation’ in Word Sketch (All instances – Modifier/ PP_to_i) Figure 5.3 foregrounds two overarching metaphorical strands: • Firstly, the victimization of BP is clearly foregrounded in the G-corpus. This can be seen in the way BP is overwhelmingly portrayed as a VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS AND BIASED LEGISLATION REPENTANT CRIMINAL MAKING RESTITUTION. 202 and a This counter-intuitive asserts one’s superior morals and rationality. This grounding in morality claims an ethical position that is not susceptible to challenge, as the emotions of anger, protectiveness and loyalty are foregrounded. A reference to the BODY POLITIC metaphor is also made in attributing the oil spill as the cause of a “convulsion in American politics” – likely made in reference either to the onset of either a stroke or a heart attack. This implied violent upheaval, disturbance or social agitation is an extension of the HEALTH AND DISEASE scenario serves to reinforce the THREAT inherent in the entire situation. Interestingly, a parallel metaphor can be identified in Text 5.21 below where the BODY POLITIC metaphor is conceptualised as an image metaphor: DAMAGED INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS AN INFLAMED BODY PART. Text 5.21 G-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Spill” in SkE A quick overview of the range of conceptual metaphors embodied by the expanded contexts in Texts 5.20-5.21 can be seen below: • POLITICS IS WAR/ BUSINESS IS WAR (Structural Metaphors) • INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS WAR (Structural Metaphors) • BP IS A VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS (Ontological Metaphors: Personification) 240 • THE US MEDIA IS A MOB/ THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A MOB *Allusion to lynching of a minority race (Ontological Metaphors: Personification) • *BODY POLITIC (HEALTH & DISEASE): THE STATE (AMERICAN POLITICS) IS A BODY (Ontological Metaphors: Image Metaphors) • *BODY POLITIC (HEALTH & DISEASE): DAMAGED INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS AN INFLAMED BODY PART (Ontological Metaphors: Image Metaphors) The unifying thread in Texts 5.20-5.21 seems to embody a thinly veiled swipe at the US media and the Obama Administration. The direct metaphorical reference to the Obama Administration’s failure and incompetence is exemplified by the explicit reference to the extent of the entire tragedy. The direct reference to the CONFLICT (WAR) scenario foregrounds the ontological metaphor of a INCOMPETENT WAR GENERAL that is both an incompetent strategist and failed enforcer. Furthermore, the Obama Administration’s vain attempts at distancing his own government from the corruption and dysfunction in the government agency charged with oversight of the offshore oil industry (by vilifying BP) are strategically reified by the Gcorpus to legitimise the “UNFAIR VICTIMISATION” rhetoric. Thus it can be seen that political culture, editorial perspective and the strategic employment of conceptual metaphors are inextricably linked and serve to foreground the nationalistic sentiments encompassed by the G-corpus. 241 5.4.2. A detailed analysis of the WAR/CRIME/CONFLICT metaphor keys in the TT-corpus (Substances and Materials: Liquid_1_TT: ‘Oil’) I will now proceed to analyse the parallel construction of reality engendered by the same lexical item – “Oil” – in the TT-corpus. Text 5.22 from the TT-corpus seems to play down the “self-other” dichotomy, preferring to establish common ground, presumably for pragmatic economic purposes: Text 5.22 TT-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Company” in SkE Text 5.22 seems to ground its political position in neutrality, claiming that there is no evidence in the oil spill “damaging British interests” or “encouraging serious anti-British feeling”. The inference is that while certain segments of the US media and some politicians are irrational, the British media (and the British, in general) assert superior rationality and can claim to be the legitimate authority on the issue. The predominant overarching conceptual metaphor seems to highlight a specific subset of the CONFLICT scenario: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS A GAME OF STRATEGY/ WAR. This is embodied by the use of the terms “damaging”, “anti-British”, “backlash”, “think-tank” and “rough handling”. According to the Macmillan Online 242 Dictionary, the term “backlash” refers to a “strong, negative, often angry reaction to a political or social change”, the term “anti-British” refers to an inherent “opposition” to anything British whilst the reference to “think-tank” essentially refers to a group of experts who provide strategic advice and ideas on political and social issues. Taken in tandem, the core scenarios of CONFLICT and STRATEGY are foregrounded accordingly. The establishment of the claim to rationality and veracity is done through the presupposition that “most Americans” understand that “there is no such thing as a national oil company”. The subtle pro-British stance adopted in Text 5.23 is in contrast to the overt nationalistic sentiments generally conveyed in the G-corpus. This is encapsulated by the range of metaphors focusing on BP’s portrayal as a COSMOPOLITAN ENTITY rather than on a critical assessment of the failings by the Obama Administration. This neutral stance is further echoed and established in Text 5.23 below: Text 5.23 TT-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Spill” in SkE Text 5.23 provides a resounding stamp of approval to taking a more measured course of action in the castigation of BP. This is due to the fact that it was a “fishing boat skipper”, supposedly a direct victim of the oil spill, who 243 was playing the influential role as the “voice of reason”. The reference to BP as a victim of the archaic practice of having “its head chopped off” effectively presents an alternative reality where the US government is portrayed as the aggressor instead of the victim. The image of the US government “jerking (BP) around” and “(declaring) open season on the British oil giant” powerfully portrays the US government-BP relationship in either a BULLY-VICTIM or HUNTER-PREY dichotomy. This is a powerfully embedded metaphor as minimal cues are provided even though this is intentionally portrayed as the representative voice of the true victims of the spill, strategically portrayed as seemingly “unadulterated” by politics and various affiliations. This metaphor foregrounds the pragmatic concerns not just from the standpoint of British self-interest, but also from the true voices from the ground that are concerned with their livelihoods and not political resonance from the voting masses. Text 5.23 also strategically gives the mental representation of the US government as one embroiled in deep-seated internal conflict, with BP portrayed as collateral damage, caught in the crossfire. This is portrayed by the Republican Rand Paul “rounding on the White House for being un-American in attacking business”. This serves to insidiously highlight the pragmatic, pro-business stance that is echoed across most segments of the US population - from the fishing boat skipper, to the Republicans as well as BP investors from all over the globe. This seems to portray the “White House” or the Obama Administration as the only party with a discordant voice, out of sync with the reality of the situation. It is interesting to note the subtler manner in which the US Government’s incompetence is highlighted. Where the G-corpus goes on a direct offensive critiquing the poor policies and the shared culpability, the TT- 244 corpus prefers to highlight the pro-business sentiments and the economic considerations involved in taking a hardline stance against BP. In a similar vein, Text 5.24 from the TT-corpus portrays the Obama Administration as failing to consult the Gulf victims by stating that castigating BP and the oil industry will result in “even more damage to the battered state”, plunging the economy from the “frying pan into the fire”. The more measured depiction can also be seen in the way the clear focus is placed on the extent of the economic damage rather than on finger pointing and blame-mongering. An interesting reference in Text 5.24 would be the nomenclature used in reference to the oil spill. It can be seen that the sense of shared culpability is highlighted in the way the catastrophe is termed the “BP Deepwater Horizon blowout”. This reference implicates the owners of the Deepwater Horizon Rig, Swissbased Transocean as well as the US government for the approval permits granted for the operation of the rig. The reference to the “Gulf of Mexico’s Chernobyl” also avoids the direct mention of BP’s culpability in the process. This portrayal is significant as it is proposed by Chilton (2004, p.124-125) that “xenophobic (nationalistic) discourse by elite speakers enters a network of communicative interchanges involving the media and chains of face-to-face interaction that spread into the everyday talk of non-elite networks in a community”. This highlights the importance of analysing the potential differences in the portrayal of the key figures in these broadsheets as it has potentially significant effects on political processes and diplomatic tensions. 245 Text 5.24 TT-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Company” in SkE Finally, Text 5.25 constructs a narrative sequence that presumes certain axioms. These include protecting the weak (a repentant BP) and upholding the interests of all parties concerned (the interests of BP investors all around the globe, the economic livelihoods of the gulf states): Text 5.25 TT-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Company” in SkE This legitimises the pragmatic stance taken by the TT-corpus in terms of the focus on economic survival and the adoption of a win-win philosophy. This portrayal serves to produce a coherent overarching conceptual key and scenario i.e. POLITICS IS WAR/ BUSINESS IS WAR (CONFLICT). This pragmatic stance is effectively encapsulated by the extent of the damage incurred on the victims by all the parties involved. This ranges from “economic and ecological agony” for the Gulf States, an “ugly and unacceptable stain” for the oil industry, a “political minefield” for the Obama Administration as well as “total failure” to the “verge of disintegration” for BP. The intentional lexical 246 choices all serve to foreground the core scenarios of HEALTH/SICKNESS and CONFLICT. For example, in accordance to the Macmillan Online Dictionary, the reference to economic and ecological “agony” makes a direct reference to the “struggle and suffering preceding death” for the Gulf industries and the environment. The reference to the “ugly and unacceptable stain” for the oil industry is essentially an analogy-based metaphor implying that A GOOD REPUTATION IS AN UNSTAINED CLOTH. Finally, the reference to the Obama Administration navigating a “political minefield” foregrounds the conceptual key of POLITICS IS WAR where a situation wrought with many potential problems or dangers is mooted. However, the highlighting of the range of negative impacts only serves to justify BP’s continued existence by showing how all entities involved are heavily dependent on BP’s role as the economic foundation for their healthy survival. It is clear that there is a dimension of hyperbolic exaggeration in the portrayal of BP’s economic importance to all parties concerned. But it is important to note how the focus on the economic and environmental repercussions enables the text to make no overt reference to an agent. This diverts attention from and conceals BP’s agency in the cause of the oil spill. 5.5. Summary: The pre-eminence of the WAR/ CRIME/ CONFLICT conceptual keys in the TT & G-Corpus (“Oil_Modifies”) It is interesting to note the unique disjunction in the distribution of the WAR/ CRIME/THREAT conceptual key between the two British broadsheets. 247 Table 5.5 (an excerpt from Table 5.1) seems to indicate statistics that are discordant with the analytical findings in this section: Table 5.5 – An aggregate internal comparison of significant metaphors in British Broadsheets (G & TT) Conceptual Key G TT (Types/ Tokens) (Types/ Tokens) THE OIL SPILL WAR/ CRIME//CONFLICT BP/ OIL INDUSTRY DEBTOR/CRIMINAL / ENEMY/INCOMPETENCE/ PRAGMATIC OPPORTUNIST/RECKLESS/ OUTDATED/ GREEDY/ (PERSONIFICATION: NEGATIVE) THE US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CRIMINAL/ INCOMPETENT (PERSONIFICATION: NEGATIVE) 47.5% 42.3% 64.4% 68.1% 14.1% 21.4% 18.8% 22.6% 8.3% 9.9% 9.0% 9.2% The analysis in the preceding sections has demonstrated the nationalistic and antagonistic fervour in the metaphorical portrayals of the BP oil spill in the Gcorpus. This can be seen in the overwhelmingly sympathetic portrayals of BP as a VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCE, MEDIA SCAPEGOAT, PREY and REPENTANT CRIMINAL in the previous analysis of the G-corpus segments. On the other hand, the analysis has also uncovered the predominance of a pragmatic perspective in the TT-corpus where the economic and practical concerns take precedence over nationalistic notions of protectionist measures and vehement denials. However, a stance that favours pragmatic economic concerns over the plight of innocent victims would be an unpalatable media stance. Hence, the TT-corpus seems to have hedged this representation through the predominant use of the MORAL METAPHOR conceptual key – where the justification of economic pragmatism lies in the “moral duty” that one has towards selfpreservation, the rescue of others as well as the concept of fairness 248 (proportionality in the dispensation of punishment). A detailed comparative distribution of the range of metaphors can be seen in Table 5.6 below: Table 5.6 – An aggregate internal comparison of the WAR/CRIME/THREAT (DISASTER/ HEALTH & DISEASE) conceptual key in British Broadsheets (G & TT: “Oil”) Conceptual Key (Scenario) CONFLICT (WAR) G-Corpus TT-Corpus BUSINESS IS WAR BUSINESS IS CONFLICT BUSINESS IS A GAME OF SURVIVAL BUSINESS IS A GAME OF STRATEGY BP SHARE PRICE IS A PERSON/ VICTIM (*who can be weakened by reputational damage and who can be battered) CLEANING THE OIL SPILL IS WAR CLEANING THE OIL SPILL IS WAR POLITICS IS NAVIGATING A MINEFIELD POLITICS IS A GAME OF STRATEGY THE ECONOMY IS A VICTIM POLITICS IS WAR THE ENVIRONMENT IS A VICTIM REPUBLICAN TERRITORY IS ENEMY TERRITORY THE FOREIGN INTRUDER (THE UK) IS THE ENEMY THE BRITISH INVESTOR IS A VICTIM THE GULF COAST IS A VICTIM THE BRITISH INVESTOR IS A VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS THE GULF STATE IS A BATTERED FIGHTER THE BRITISH PENSION FUND IS A VICTIM (*who has suffered a blow) THE OIL IS THE ENEMY THE TOURIST INDUSTRY IS A VICTIM THE BRITISH OIL INDUSTRY IS A VICTIM THE GULF COAST IS A VICTIM UNDER ATTACK (*needing to be shielded) THE ENVIRONMENT IS A VULNERABLE PERSON THE GULF COMMUNITY IS A VICTIM THE OIL INDUSTRY IS A WARZONE THE OIL SPILL IS A BOMB CRIME - THE AMERICAN CONSUMER IS BP’S ACCOMPLICE IN THE OIL SPILL DISASTER A FAILED BUSINESS IS A SINKING SHIP LANDMARK DISASTER MEDIA CRITICISM IS A TIDAL WAVE THE BP BLOWOUT IS A COLLISION WITH AN ADVANCING VEHICLE THE OIL SPILL IS A POLITICAL FIRESTORM THE OIL SPILL IS A NATURAL DISASTER WITH A SEVERE AFTERMATH THE SPREADING OF CONTROVERSIAL NEWS IS STARTING A FIRE 249 HEALTH AND DISEASE (BODY POLITIC) A HEALTHY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIP IS A HEALTHY BODY PART STRAINED INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS A DISEASED BODY PART THE ECOSYSTEM IS A VULNERABLE ENTITY A GOOD BUSINESS IS A HEALTHY PERSON THE BP OIL SPILL IS A DISEASE TO THE OIL INDUSTRY THE GULF ECONOMY IS A DYING VICTIM THE OIL IS A SICKNESS THE ENVIRONMENT IS A FRAGILE PATIENT THE OIL INDUSTRY IS A PATIENT THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT IS A PATIENT THE OIL SPILL IS LIKE SUNBURN ON A CANCER PATIENT THE MMS IS A DYSFUNCTIONAL BODY PART THE OIL WELL IS A PATIENT THE OIL IS A SERIOUS ILLNESS THE OIL WELL IS A PATIENT Analogy-Based Metaphors A COMPANY’S FINANCIAL STATUS IS A SHIP A GOOD REPUTATION IS AN UNSTAINED REPUTATION A COMPANY’S FINANCIAL STATUS IS A STRUCTURE A GOOD REPUTATION IS WELL POLISHED METAL A CORPORATION IS A STRUCTURE BP IS THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION FOR THE US ECONOMY A RUINED REPUTATION IS A BURNED OBJECT AN ORGANISATION IS A BUILDING LOSING A JOB IS GETTING CHOPPED BY AN AXE MEDIA PUBLICITY IS AN ENDLESS STREAM BP’S COLLECTION OF ERRORS IS LIKE A LARGE WATERFALL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IS A BODY PART OIL IS MILK TO AN INFANT US ECONOMY THE ECONOMY IS A STRUCTURE ONE’S REPUTATION IS A CLOTH ONE’S REPUTATION/IMAGE IS AN ENTITY VESTED INTERESTS ARE OBSTACLES TO PROGRESS RIVAL OIL COMPANIES ARE PREDATORS THE BP OIL SPILL IS AN UNFOLDING DRAMA THE ECONOMY IS A STRUCTURE THE MEDIA GLARE IS A STAGE PERFORMANCE THE WELL IS A BEAST The range of conceptual keys, scenarios and conceptual metaphors resulting from the detailed comparative analysis of the “WAR/ CRIME/ THREAT (DISASTER/HEALTH & DISEASE)” conceptual key is effectively captured in Table 5.6. All these conceptual metaphors are mined from the IICM from the 250 most empirically salient USAS domain of “Substances and Materials: Liquid_ OIL_1”. The resultant findings can be distilled into the following evaluative directions: • While the TT-corpus contains a more significant proportion of “WAR/CRIME/ THREAT” metaphor tokens (68.1%) in comparison with the G-corpus (42.3%), the range of metaphors in the TT-corpus generally refers to the concepts of BUSINESS and INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS as a GAME OF STRATEGY rather than WAR. This simply means that the elements of strategy and compromise in the “WAR/CRIME/ THREAT” conceptual keys are highlighted, rather than on aspects of antagonistic, nationalistic fervour. This is clearly demonstrated in the significant utilisation of the “moral metaphor” arguments, highlighting the pragmatic concerns of finding a win-win compromise in the cleaning of the oil spill. This can be seen in the portrayal of BP investors and the range of British interests as INNOCENT VICTIMS as well as the emphasis on BP’s central economic role in both the British and American economies. This seems to warrant the need for a measured punitive response that ensures BP’s (and the American economy’s) long-term survival. BP’s status as a COSMOPOLITAN ENTITY with inextricable British and American links is also highlighted in the TT-corpus in an attempt to mitigate BP’s Britishness from the agency of the spill. It is interesting to note that the catastrophic consequences of the resultant economic and ecological devastation remain concealed by the TT-corpus behind a range of 251 economic and pragmatic concerns. Statistically, the TT-corpus seems to uphold a more combative stance towards BP’s and the US Government’s involvement in the oil spill. This is demonstrated in Table 5.5 where 22.6% of metaphorical references to BP are nonsympathetic whilst the G-corpus contains merely 14.1%. However, the detailed analysis in this section clearly shows that these nonsympathetic portrayals of BP can be attributed to the high proportion of statistics addressing the scale and the extent of the damage incurred by the blowout whilst the non-sympathetic views of the Obama Administration are due to the multiple warnings in the TT-corpus against the unfair castigation and victimisation of BP due to BP’s status as the economic foundation in the US, UK and beyond. Hence, it is clear that despite the predominance of the WAR/CRIME/THREAT conceptual key in the TT-corpus, the actual stance embodied is one that is pragmatic and moots the long-term economic benefits resulting from a political compromise in the settlement of this blowout. • On the other hand, the G-corpus adopts an overtly nationalistic stance. The seemingly marginally greater proportion of negative portrayals of the US Government (9.9%) compared to that of the TT-corpus (9.2%) serves to mask the antagonistic fervour that is captured in the G-corpus. The G-corpus structures the domains of POLITICS and BUSINESS as WAR. This is not hedged by the emphasis on STRATEGY/COMPROMISE that is embodied by the TT-corpus. Where the TT-corpus uses a range of statistics and numbers to highlight the catastrophic impact of the oil spill, the G-corpus utilises incendiary metaphors depicting the oil spill 252 as a WAR ZONE, BOMB, POLITICAL FIRESTORM, SINKING SHIP, TIDAL WAVE and COLLISION WITH AN ADVANCING VEHICLE. Where the TT- corpus portrays BP’s status as a COMPETENT PROBLEM SOLVER and the VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS, the G-corpus goes a step further, invoking nationalistic indignation at the reference to BP as a TERRORIST, a RECKLESS HEDONIST or even as a WOMAN IN NEED OF A PATRON, driven by desperation to an immoral means for survival (Text 5.18). Even though the proportion metaphor types espousing the negative portrayal of BP (14.1%) is less significant than that of the TTcorpus (18.8%), the repeated portrayals BP’s “unfair victimisation” at the hands of the US media and the Obama Administration serves to stimulate anxiety or fear for BP’s survival in the British readers. This can be seen in BP’s portrayal as a VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCE, PREY and as a REPENTANT CRIMINAL that is undergoing severe and unfair castigation. The VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCE metaphor can be seen as a form of emotional coercion as it portrays BP as an entity totally at the mercy of events beyond its control, masking BP’s role in the entire disaster. The PREY metaphor makes inferences to American, Russian and Chinese oil companies as the PREDATORS waiting to swoop in for the kill. The emotive power of this metaphor essentially lies in the subtle presupposition that BP is being victimised by the US Government and other rival companies (foreign entities and competitors) at the expense of British interests. This serves to stimulate the nationalistic emotions of protectiveness and loyalty amongst the British readers. Hence, it is clear that the emphasis on this self-other 253 schema is one of the main rhetorical strategies in the G-corpus to legitimise its combative stance. On the other hand, the TT-corpus chooses to focus on the pragmatic economic concerns on both sides of the divide and on the technical aspects in combating the spill rather than adopting a stance with a truth assertion in BP’s favour. • Finally, the choice of analogy-based metaphors in both British broadsheets reflects the underlying editorial perspectives pertaining to the “WAR/CRIME/ THREAT” conceptual key. This is clearly demonstrated in the reference to BP’s “public lynching” by the US Government and the US media in the G-corpus. The term “lynching” embodies a strong xenophobic and nationalistic element, where BP (the foreign aggressor and intruder) becomes the victim of a “hatecrime”. This presumes a lack of due process in the act of BP’s “execution”. The unmitigated reference to BP’s cosmopolitan status as a result of being “engulfed” by a tidal wave works to co-implicate the multiple-agency of the entire spill and serves to foreground American, Swiss and Korean involvement in each faulty process leading to the oil spill. This is in contrast to the TT-corpus where the contextual metaphors work in tandem to mitigate BP’s involvement and advocate BP’s continued economic survival in the US and beyond. This can be seen in Text 5.23 where a fishing boat skipper, supposedly a direct victim of the oil spill, advocates BP’s continuing survival (i.e. that BP should NOT have its “head chopped off”, portraying BP as helpless PREY of blood sport – a deliberate reference to the statement that the US government has “declared open season on BP”). This is seen as an 254 acknowledgement and as a crucial justification of the TT-corpus’ pragmatic stance. The TT-corpus also avoids direct incendiary metaphors addressing the US government’s policy failures and missteps, preferring instead to focus on the state of the economy. This can be seen in Text 5.25 where the state of the economy and the repercussions in the disproportionate castigating of BP are highlighted, potentially resulting in “plunging the (US) economy from the frying pan into the fire”. The legitimacy of this pragmatic stance is further played up by the seemingly compassionate stance in the neutral reference to the Gulf States as a BATTERED FIGHTER and as innocent victims worthy of protection. However, a deeper analysis of the full context reveals the true intentions behind the moral axiom of protecting the weak – the underlying pragmatic concern for BP’s longterm survival. 255 [...]... statements show how these incendiary and biased portrayals of BP serve to galvanise the US House and Senate into combat against the foreign aggressor, drawing clear battle lines in the process of mitigating the Obama Administration’s culpability in the oil spill This serves to highlight the intense (and unfair) political pressure placed upon BP by American politicians by casting BP as a CRIMINAL and. .. specific instance, the Obama Administration PRAGMATIST is metaphorically depicted as an UNTRUSTWORTHY who “grotesquely exaggerated the oil threat to advance his personal and party cause” The Obama Administration is also metaphorically portrayed as an INCOMPETENT WAR GENERAL who unwisely “led the charge in the disaster” that has backfired This is seen in the reference to the Obama Administration “pathetically”... and the foregrounding of nationalist interests Table 5. 4 provides a comparative snapshot of the range of conceptual metaphors arising from the predominant metaphor keys (scenarios) All these metaphors are mined using the IICM framework and comprise the detailed analysis of six salient lexical items from three USAS domains – Speech: Communicative/ Damaging and Destroying/ Green Issues These domains and. .. extent of the situational parallels in both catastrophes, including the unprecedented extent of the environmental damage, the loss of lives and the associated “bereavement and financial loss” However, the deliberate contrast is made along nationalistic metaphorical assertions that the BRITISH GOVERNMENT IS A GENTLEMAN juxtaposed against the portrayal of the US GOVERNMENT as an UNSCRUPULOUS POLITICAL TACTICIAN... 2 15 • Foregrounding BP’s unfair victimization at the hands of American media • Highlighting BP’s key political and economic contributions to Britain and beyond • Drawing parallel evaluations with Britain’s glorious past (as symbolised by the key role played by the East India Company) These three metaphorical strands work in tandem to legitimise and mitigate BP’s role in the entire saga in the G -corpus. .. underlying sense of injustice is captured by the British broadsheets in the way BP seems to be made the convenient villain despite the fact that there are multiple factors and a range of non -British corporations that are directly involved in the catastrophe i.e Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (a US -based oil and gas exploration and production company), Transocean Ltd (a Swissbased offshore drilling contractor),... backfired While President Obama’s attempt to draw this parallel between the two landmark events was aimed at evoking maximum emotional impact, the editorial perspective adopted by Text 5. 16 in the G -corpus seems to indicate otherwise In fact, President’s Obama’s rhetoric aimed at galvanising the masses against an external perpetrator of violence (BP and the oil industry) was in turn portrayed as an... the oil spill The last two references seem to show BP in the role of a 210 HUNTER killing a THREAT juxtaposed against the portrayal of BP as a DOMESTIC SERVANT, dutifully mopping up the spill BP is also personified as a VICTIM OF BETRAYAL, in the reference to the way its two partners in the rig, Anadarko and Mitsui have “both refused to pay their share of the costs” When juxtaposed against BP’s earnest... contains inherent connotations of the well being “an animal of vicious character that has separated from the main herd and leads a solitary life”, in the process bringing attention away from BP’s ownership of the well, emphasising instead, on the random nature of the occurrence The metaphor that portrays BP as a RESILIENT ENTITY is emphasised in the reference to a “new BP” that will be reborn from amidst the. .. survival is of paramount importance to all parties concerned The discourse also makes tangential reference to Hayward’s “unfairly attributed” status as a political scapegoat in the American media It is interesting to note how the concealment of agency and blame attribution is hidden in the G -corpus under the ontological metaphor of personification In this instance, the personification of BP embodies the . basis for an aggregate view of the dominant metaphor strands as well as the metaphorical evaluation of the key figures in the BP Oil Spill. Table 5. 1 – An aggregate internal comparison of. from Chapter 4. As is the convention for this thesis, the corpus and the accompanying rank within the semantic domain are captured in the accompanying brackets after the semantic domains. The. character that has separated from the main herd and leads a solitary life”, in the process bringing attention away from BP’s ownership of the well, emphasising instead, on the random nature of