Metaphor power in the context of the author’s opinion expression and perception

Full Text

1. Introduction

The initial contradictory status of metaphor, as well as the difference in specific functions in language and speech, has led to dispersion of research in the field of metaphor. Studies of metaphor are characterised by a considerable breadth of object and subject boundaries, which, according to Budaev and Chudinov, “reflects the ambiguity of solving the problem of metaphor in modern science” (Budaev & Chudinov 2006: 12). As it is known, metaphor, being one of the favourite topics of modern linguistic research, is considered as a means of ‘ornamenting’ speech (Cheremisova 2019), manifestation of dynamics in the sphere of lexical semantics a way of word formation (Gak et al. 1988, Arutyunova 1990) a communicative phenomenon conditioned by context and author’s intention (Searle 1979, Gibbs, Tendahl & Okonski 2011), a means of emotional and expressive influence (Teliya 1988, Solopova & Kushneruk 2021), and a mechanism of structuring, transforming and creating new knowledge (Lakoff & Johnson 2004, Turner & Fauconnier 2003). Philosophers have consistently argued about the mythological and symbolic nature of human thinking which have been formed into the theory of conceptual (cognitive) metaphor, according to which “our conceptual system is largely metaphoric, since the way we think, the things we learn from experience, and the things we do every day have the most direct relation to metaphor” (Lakoff & Johnson 2004: 25). Metaphor, as a linguistic and cognitive phenomenon, is used to represent and create linguistic consciousness that reflects nation-specific and universal features of thinking characteristic of a certain linguistic and cultural group (Kövecses 2009, Winter & Matlock 2017, Guan & Sun 2023, Solopova & Saltykova 2019, Solopova et al. 2023, etc.). It is a way of organising human cultural experience and an integral cultural paradigm for speakers of any language.

The synthetic nature of metaphor as an intersection of language, thinking and culture, also implies a special role of metaphor in discourse, as any social processes require subjective interpretation by the participants of the discursive process. At the same time, the interpretation of the surrounding reality takes place through conceptualisation and categorisation, that include mechanisms of metaphorical transfer (Musolff 2019, Brugman, Burgers & Vis 2019). Thus, a wide range of approaches and views could not but draw attention to the need for a detailed study of metaphor as a means of speech effect, which is also considered from the perspective of different branches of linguistics.

In our opinion, in modern conditions of media communication development, when information becomes a key means of shaping public opinion, constructing and changing the image of public institutions, a marketing tool and a basis for the future economy development, the study of speech impact is especially relevant from the position of cognitive paradigm, as it is mediated by the interpretive function of language “as its special function with regard to the representation of knowledge about the world” (Boldyrev 2011: 11).

In this regard, taking into account Blakar’s thesis that it is impossible “to express oneself ‘neutrally’ as even informal conversation involves the ‘exercise of power’” (Blakar 1987: 91), we can speak of a permanent cognitive and speech impact that is, the influence on the perceiving and structuring of the world by another person, carried out by means of language and discourse. Thus, “the essence of speech impact consists in such use of language in discourse, in which new knowledge is introduced and/or existing knowledge is modified into the recipient’s conceptual model of the world” (Kalinin 2021: 328). Thus, metaphor, which is based on the cognitive reinterpretation of one conceptual domain (target domain) through the conceptual features of another domain (source domain), presents itself as one of the most effective and accessible forms of cognitive-speech influence for research using linguistic methods.

The study of metaphorical speech impact (metaphor power), like any study of speech impact in general, faces several issues, the most problematic of which are:

1. What are the mechanisms of speech influence?
2. What is the relationship between metaphor power and the generation/perception of the influencing utterance?

This paper attempts to explore the mechanisms of metaphor power in the context of authorial expression and perception, thus extending the theoretical and practical scope of the study of metaphorical speech impact. The study is focused on the speech impact, which belongs to the category of non-intentional. In other words, the authors of the texts studied did not seek to influence the audience. These texts are essays-reflections on the topic: ‘What is Russia for you?’ and they represent the expression of the author’s opinion in response to the posed problem question. In this regard, the relevance of the study lies in the fact that metaphorical speech influence is considered as a means of implicit non-intentional speech influence both from the positions of utterance production and perception.

The aim of the article is to identify the correlation between speech influence (persuasiveness) and different aspects of language metaphors use in the text, namely density (the number of metaphors per text volume), intensity (the ratio of new and conventional metaphors) and type of metaphorical projections (the ratio between orientational, ontological and structural metaphors) in the context of expression and perception of the author’s opinion.

To achieve the goal of the study, we quantified metaphor power of texts expressing authorial opinion, identified the relationship between metaphor power of texts and the expression of the author’s opinion and then specified the relationship between the metaphor power of texts and the perception of the author’s opinion.

We hypothesize that authors non-intentionally use vivid structural metaphors in the parts of the text that reflect their opinion (a). Additionally, recipients of the speech message assume that those parts of the text containing the greatest number of vivid structural metaphors directly express the author’s opinion (b).

Achieving the research aim, accomplishing tasks and confirming the hypothesis will not only empirically lend credence to the supposed relationship between speech impact and metaphor power immediately in the context of utterance generation and perception, but also demonstrate which aspects of functional capacity, namely metaphor, density, intensity and typology, are most closely related to speech influence, which contributes to the development of metaphor theory.

2. Metaphor and speech impact

Based on the cognitive understanding of the nature of metaphor, we can argue that the use of metaphors in discourse will always have an impact at the cognitive level. As Teliya wrote (1988), “metaphorization is always a problematic cognitive-communicative situation, involving the goal-oriented intention of the subject of metaphorization, which sets the cognitive or pragmatic function of metaphor in communicative acts” (Teliya 1988: 29).

A number of scholars of metaphor point to the special role of metaphor in creating or enhancing the speech effect and persuasiveness of an utterance. The persuasiveness of metaphor in political discourse has been studied in a series of studies by Boroditsky and Thibodeau (2011, 2013). The authors are convinced that the special role of metaphor in persuasiveness is due to its frame character: “Metaphors in language reflect frame-consistent structures of knowledge and evoke structurally consistent inferences. Metaphors do not just flourish in rhetoric; they have a profound effect on how we conceptualize knowledge and act on important societal issues” (Thibodeau & Boroditsky 2011). Scholars point out that metaphors influence people’s reasoning even when there is a set of alternative solutions to compare and choose from. “Metaphors can influence not only which solution comes to mind first, but also which solution people think is best, even when they are given the opportunity to explicitly compare alternatives” (Thibodeau & Boroditsky 2013). The main reason for this persuasive effect of metaphorical projections in communication is believed to be the cognitive nature of metaphor. It is emphasized “that most recipients could not distinguish metaphor in the text or did not recognize metaphor as a linguistic means that influenced them in any way” (Thibodeau & Boroditsky 2013). Thus, metaphor in this study is defined as a means of “implicitly influencing decision-making” (Thibodeau & Boroditsky 2013).

Metaphor power is invariably related to metaphor perception and is based on the main theories and approaches to the study of metaphor in general: semantic, pragmatic and cognitive. Sopory (2006 :252) has analysed in detail views and concepts on the nature of functional metaphor, identifying 6 main mechanisms of metaphor impact: (1) Pleasure or Relief, (2) Communicator credibility, (3) Reduced сounterarguments, (4) Resource-matching, (5) Stimulated elaboration, (6) Superior organization.

Pleasure or Relief assumes that three stages are involved in the perception of a metaphorical expression: the perception of ‘semantic error’ associated with the novelty of the metaphor, semantic conflict and conflict resolution, which dissipates the negative tension, leading to cognitive relief, and the resulting pleasure of the removal of semantic tension as if to reinforce the metaphorical meaning and the evaluation associated with it. By “Commutator Credibility” it is assumed that the speech messages containing metaphors are considered to be more credible than those expressed non-metaphorically. Reduced сounterarguments means that the process of perceiving a metaphor leads to the formation of a large number of associations in the mind, which causes a kind of “overloading of the recipient’s mental schema”, and as a result a greater agreement with the content of the speech message is achieved. Resource-matching assumes that when a metaphor is perceived, certain cognitive resources of the recipient are expended on its processing. In the perception of a conventional metaphor, already familiar and comprehensible to the recipient, minimal processing of the speech expression containing the metaphor is achieved and, thus, maximum understanding is achieved. Stimulated elaboration is represented in the greater number of semantic connections in a metaphor leads to the need for elaboration of the message content, which in turn leads to increased persuasiveness. Superior organization implies that metaphor helps to structure and organize the arguments of a message better than literal language. Metaphor evokes more semantic associations, and different arguments connect more logically through the many semantic paths available. To the 6 concepts listed above and presented in Sopory’s (2006) meta-analysis, Stee van (2018) further added “Attention”, which presupposes that a metaphorical message may initially attract attention or interest, which may lead to greater cognitive processing and consequent persuasion of the recipient, but the strength of the impact of this metaphorical expression may vary (Stee van 2018).

The study of Ottati and Renstrom (2010) presents another approach to explaining and classifying the reasons for the potential speech impact of metaphors. According to the researchers, “metaphor performs multiple functions in persuasion, and the relationship between metaphor and speech effects is potentially mediated by several psychological mechanisms” (Ottati & Renstrom 2010: 784). Ottati and Renstrom, based on previous theories, identify three main ideas among them:

1. “Metaphorical utterances can activate information that is directly related to the topic of communication and thereby have an impact on attitudes towards the topic of the speech message.
2. The use of metaphors can influence impressions about the author of a speech message and thus influence attitudes towards the topic of that message as well.
3. Metaphors can influence attitudes towards the topic of communication by affecting the direction or degree of elaboration that occurs when the recipient of a speech message perceives that message” (Ottati & Renstrom 2010: 785).

Thus, metaphorical speech impact is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Therefore, based on the studies of Sopory (2006) and Ottati and Renstrom (2010) the speech impact of metaphor can be divided into:

1) “releasing effect – the tension which arises from the violation of the semantic-cognitive links of the concepts and “dissipates” after the recipient decodes the speech message, and the pleasure of relieving semantic tension seems to lead to the strengthening of the metaphorical meaning and the evaluation associated with it;

2) credit standing effect – speech messages of communicators containing metaphors are considered to be more credible, which is historically linked to the special role of ‘colourful’ oratory in public communication;

3) dampening effect – the elaboration of metaphorical messages consumes more resources, it weakens the possible counterarguments of the recipient, which leads to an increase in the persuasiveness of the metaphorical utterance;

4) stimulating effect – the elaboration of the metaphor stimulates the evaluation of more cognitive information than the perception of literal information;

5) structuring effect – metaphor evokes more structural-semantic associations, and when these associations are consistent with metaphor, different arguments are connected more logically through the many semantic paths available” (Kalinin 2022b: 230).

The proposed subtypes of the metaphor cognitive impact correlate on a functional level with metaphor intensity. “Conventional metaphors have a dampening, structuring and credit-establishing cognitive impact, while novel metaphors have releasing, affective and stimulating cognitive impact” (Kalinin 2022b: 232), which together can be divided into rational-impacting and emotional-impacting (Leontovich, Kalinin & Ignatenko 2023, Ignatenko 2022, 2023). According to the proposed Metaphor Power Theory, considering metaphor as a semantic transfer, we can postulate that the persuasiveness of metaphor is also manifested on the level of semantics. By this, we mean that metaphor power arises due to the grammatical form and semantics of the source and target domains.

Orientational metaphors are verbally realized through lexemes reflecting either spatial position (top, bottom, front, back) or basic physiological and sensory sensations (heavy, light, hot), and are associated with the basic sensory experience, universal for any social community. Orientational metaphors are actually unrelated to speech exposure; this type of metaphor relies on the most stable type of conceptual worldview, so we can define the impact of orientational metaphors as representational. Ontological metaphors are used to identify and explain complex abstract concepts and are verbally realized through attributive (Adj + N) or verbal (V + N) constructions. Ontological metaphors expand semantics, and when used in discourse, they identify this new, expanded, and augmented semantic domain. Ontological metaphors have an identification effect on the recipient of a speech message. Structural metaphors, which are usually direct and constructed using lexical means of comparison and similarity (as if, like, similar to) or based on the model “A is B”, are used to structure one concept through another; they change the cognitive content of the target domain. Through direct cognitive-structural transfer, structural metaphors become a kind of purposeful disruption of semantic and cognitive connections in the mind of the recipient, leading to a transformation of the concept and its semantics. It can be said that structural metaphors perform a transformational function.

Thus, different types of metaphor power are comprehensively implemented in discourse at different levels. The cognitive level relates to cognitive effects, realized through the use of metaphors of different levels of intensity, which are based on different cognitive mechanisms. The linguistic level refers to the semantic speech impact, which is realized through the use of orientational, ontological, and structural metaphors. These metaphors are based on different semantic transpositions and expressed in various grammatical forms. An analysis of these two levels of metaphor power in correlation with the expression and perception of authorial opinion will allow us to clarify earlier theoretical conclusions about the nature and mechanisms of the power of metaphor.

3. Data and research methods

The research data in our study is based on the results of a two-stage linguistic experiment. In the first stage, 20 experts created three-part texts. The criterion for selecting the experts was having a university degree in Russian Philology or Journalism. The age of the experts ranged between 28 and 60. The experts received the following task: “Write an essay on the topic ‘What is Russia for you?’ Structure your essays into three parts: ‘Russia is its history, ‘Russia is its people’, and ‘Russia is its culture’. Summarise your personal opinion on the topic in the part that you find most relevant for expressing your position”. Thus, the experts had to structure the text into three parts, each part had to be 300–400 words in length. The participation in the experiment was voluntary and all the texts written by the experts were accepted into the study as satisfying the set criteria. After the essays were written, the passages summarising the author's position (e.g. “Thus, Russia is first of all...”) were removed for the purpose of the following analysis.. In the written essays we calculated the metaphor power indices for each essay in general and for each part (culture, history, people) in particular, which allowed us to compare the manifestation of metaphor power with the expression of the author's opinion; the quantitative value of the metaphor power indices allowed us to determine the dominant type of speech impact.

The second stage of the experiment included the analysis of the perceived persuasiveness of the speech message. The 20 texts written by the experts were presented to162 respondents to read and analyze the perceived author’s position. The subjects had to “decode the message” and identify which position (Russia – culture/history/people) is closest to the author's position. The respondents were 3rd-4th year undergraduate students of the Translation Faculty of the “Moscow State Linguistic University”. The aim of this part of the study was to analyse the perceived implicit persuasiveness. We compared data on the density, intensity and types of metaphors in the original essay texts, data on the original author’s position and the results of the perceived persuasiveness, and calculated the correlation between the number of metaphors and which parts of the text seemed most persuasive from the perspective of the recipients of the message.

Metaphor-driven discourse analysis (MDDA) was adopted as the research method, which is based on calculating certain indices related to the use of metaphors in the text: Metaphor Density Index (MDI), Metaphor Intensity Index (MII), and Metaphor Functional Typology Index (MFTI) (Sun et al. 2021, Kalinin & Ignatenko 2022).

Metaphor Density Index relies on the formula of the Metaphor Frequency Index developed by Landtsheer De (Landtsheer De 2009): MDI (Metaphor Density Index) = nme*100/nwords, where nme – is the quantity of metaphors, and nwords – the quantity of words in the text. This index represents the average number of metaphors per 100 words of text. This formula is fully identical to the MFI (Metaphor Frequency Index), but it seems appropriate to use the term “density” rather than “frequency”.

Metaphor intensity refers to the difference in emotional intensity that different types of metaphor evoke. In this regard, researchers often contrast conventional and authorial metaphors, pointing to differences in the cognitive mechanisms that determine different types of metaphor. These differences are clearly demonstrated in Bowdle and Gentner’s career theory of metaphor (Bowdle & Gentner 2005), where it is argued that metaphor seems to “live its life” from the new authorial one, which is based on comparison, to the conventional one, which is based on the categorization process. Metaphor intensity is an important indicator for analysing the metaphor power of text and discourse. The metaphor intensity index (MII) developed by C. de Landtsheer (Landtsheer De 2009) is considered appropriate for its calculation: MII = (1*w+2*a+3*s)/nme, where w – is a quantity of low-intensity (dead, conventional) metaphors, a – the number of medium-intensity metaphors, s – the number of high-intensity (vivid, authorial metaphors).

The metaphor functional typology index based on the classification of Lakoff and Johnson (2004), quantifies the average of all metaphorical functions in a text or discourse. Thus, it can serve as a method for conducting a comprehensive analysis of metaphor power. Calculating this index reflects the quantitative distribution of orientational, ontological and structural metaphors. The formula for the metaphor functional typology index appears as follows: MfTI = (1*Or+2*O+3*St)/nme, where Or – the quantity of orientational metaphors, O – the quantity of ontological metaphors, St – the quantity of structural metaphors, nme – the quantity of all the metaphors in the text.

Thus, calculating the index of metaphor density allows us to determine the overall metaphorical potency of the texts under study. The index of intensity enables us to assess the cognitive impact and discern the rational and emotional influence. The index of functional typology represents the impact at the semantic level and helps in defining it as representational, identificational, or structuring.

4. Results

4.1. Correlation between the density of metaphors and the expression/perception of authorial opinion

The study demonstrated that in 13 out of 20 cases the parts of the text which represented the author’s position were characterized by a higher metaphor density. At the same time, in 4 cases the author’s position coincided with those parts of the text which were characterized by medium metaphor density, and only in three cases the author used the least number of metaphors among all the parts of his text to reflect a position close to his opinion. If the results are converted into percentages, in 65% of the cases the authors used metaphors to increase their texts with metaphors to increase the persuasiveness of their statements. However, the initial goal of the assignment was not to make their text persuasive or metaphorically rich. In other words, we can conclude that in 65% of the cases the author subconsciously chooses a higher metaphor density in those parts of his text that are close to his personal opinion when generating a statement.

Table 1. Correlation between the metaphor density and the expression of author’s opinion 

Text number	Text content	MDI	Opinion	Text number	Text content	MDI	Opinion
1	Culture	8,9	0	11	Culture	3,3	0
	History	8,97	0		History	5,5	1
	People	4,6	1		People	4,34	0
2	Culture	3	0	12	Culture	3,75	0
	History	5,84	1		History	6,5	1
	People	3,6	0		People	4	0
3	Culture	4	1	13	Culture	5,33	0
	History	6,9	0		History	5,5	1
	People	1	0		People	5	0
4	Culture	6,5	0	14	Culture	6,97	0
	History	10	1		History	5,66	0
	People	9,5	0		People	6,6	1
5	Culture	2,8	0	15	Culture	4,3	0
	History	1,96	0		History	4,1	1
	People	5,7	1		People	1,5	0
6	Culture	5,6	1	16	Culture	8,64	0
	History	4,2	0		History	5,33	0
	People	3,1	0		People	5,33	1
7	Culture	12,7	1	17	Culture	2,43	0
	History	2,3	0		History	6,8	1
	People	5,2	0		People	5,88	0
8	Culture	6,25	0	18	Culture	2,5	1
	History	8,5	0		History	4,4	0
	People	6,1	1		People	3,2	0
9	Culture	5,9	0	19	Culture	12,6	1
	History	5,1	0		History	6,1	0
	People	6,25	1		People	9,87	0
10	Culture	5,1	1	20	Culture	2,47	0
	History	4,2	0		History	2,45	0
	People	3	0		People	3,43	1

We also analysed the perception of the utterance, which allowed us to identify the relationship between the metaphor density and the perception of the author’s opinion. When analysing the distribution of the respondents’ answers in relation to the perceived author’s opinion, it can be noted that the correlation with metaphor density is not so obvious. In 8 texts the respondents selected as corresponding to the author’s opinion the part of the text that contained the highest number of metaphors. In other 10 texts the parts that were characterised by medium metaphor density were selected and in 2 texts the respondents identified that the author’s position was expressed in the least metaphor-rich texts.

Table 2. Correlation between metaphor density and the perception of author’s opinion

Text number	Text content	MDI	Perceived opinion	Text number	Text content	MDI	Perceived opinion
1	Culture	8,9	18	11	Culture	3,3	31
	History	8,97	43		History	5,5	37
	People	4,6	101		People	4,34	38
2	Culture	3	60	12	Culture	3,75	26
	History	5,84	75		History	6,5	54
	People	3,6	27		People	4	26
3	Culture	4	72	13	Culture	5,33	25
	History	6,9	22		History	5,5	46
	People	1	68		People	5	34
4	Culture	6,5	20	14	Culture	6,97	32
	History	10	33		History	5,66	32
	People	9,5	109		People	6,6	42
5	Culture	2,8	66	15	Culture	4,3	16
	History	1,96	16		History	4,1	59
	People	5,7	42		People	1,5	31
6	Culture	5,6	38	16	Culture	8,64	42
	History	4,2	31		History	5,33	24
	People	3,1	56		People	5,33	40
7	Culture	12,7	54	17	Culture	2,43	23
	History	2,3	52		History	6,8	29
	People	5,2	19		People	5,88	54
8	Culture	6,25	15	18	Culture	2,5	44
	History	8,5	9		History	4,4	20
	People	6,1	101		People	3,2	42
9	Culture	5,9	26	19	Culture	12,6	40
	History	5,1	46		History	6,1	32
	People	6,25	53		People	,87	34
10	Culture	5,1	48	20	Culture	2,47	45
	History	4,2	39		History	2,45	20
	People	3	38		People	3,43	41

4.2. Correlation between the metaphor density and the expression/perception of authorial opinion

The intensity of metaphors was found to be the second criterion of metaphor power. The theoretical study shows that the use of vivid metaphors is closely connected with an increase in the emotionality of the utterance, which affects the speech impact, while the use of conventional metaphors reflects a rational impact, as it conveys already established mental transfers. Thus, the results of the analysis of the relationship between the intensity of metaphors and the expression and perception of the author’s opinion are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

The results show that out of 20 texts, in 16 the authors used the most intense metaphors in those parts that represent their opinion. In 3 texts, however, we observe the opposite pattern, with the author’s opinion expressed in the least metaphoric part of the text in terms of intensity. We believe that the level of correlation of 80% still confirms a greater predisposition to use vivid metaphorical imagery to represent the author’s opinion.

Table 3. Results of the analysis of the correlation between metaphor intensity and the expression of author’s opinion

Text number	Text content	MII	Opinion	Text number	Text content	MII	Opinion
1	Culture	1,2	0	11	Culture	1	0
	History	1	0		History	1,33	1
	People	1,3	1		People	1	0
2	Culture	1	0	12	Culture	1	0
	History	1,14	1		History	1,2	1
	People	1	0		People	1,25	0
3	Culture	2	1	13	Culture	1,33	0
	History	1	0		History	1	1
	People	1	0		People	1,2	0
4	Culture	1,7	0	14	Culture	1	0
	History	2,1	1		History	1,2	0
	People	2	0		People	1,3	1
5	Culture	2	0	15	Culture	1,25	0
	History	1	0		History	1,5	1
	People	1	1		People	1,1	0
6	Culture	1,2	1	16	Culture	1,42	0
	History	1	0		History	1,5	0
	People	1	0		People	2	1
7	Culture	1	1	17	Culture	1	0
	History	1,5	0		History	1,2	1
	People	1,2	0		People	1	0
8	Culture	1	0	18	Culture	2	1
	History	1	0		History	1,7	0
	People	1,3	1		People	1,9	0
9	Culture	1	0	19	Culture	2,5	1
	History	1	0		History	2,3	0
	People	1,3	1		People	2,2	0
10	Culture	1,1	1	20	Culture	1	0
	History	1	0		History	1	0
	People	1	0		People	1,2	1

In terms of the perception of the author’s opinion and its relationship to metaphor intensity, in 10 texts, respondents chose the part of the text with higher metaphor intensity as expressing the author’s opinion. In other 8 cases, a text section with a medium intensity of metaphors was chosen as expressing the author’s opinion.

Table 4. Results of the analysis of the correlation between the metaphor intensity and the perception of author’s opinion

Text number	Text content	MII	Perceived opinion	Text number	Text content	MII	Perceived opinion
1	Culture	1,3	18	11	Culture	1	31
	History	1	43		History	1,33	37
	People	1,2	101		People	1	38
2	Culture	1	60	12	Culture	1	26
	History	1,14	75		History	1,2	54
	People	1	27		People	1,25	26
3	Culture	2	72	13	Culture	1,33	25
	History	1	22		History	1	46
	People	1	68		People	1,2	34
4	Culture	1,7	20	14	Culture	1	32
	History	2,1	33		History	1,2	32
	People	2	109		People	1,3	42
5	Culture	2	66	15	Culture	1,25	16
	History	1	16		History	1,5	59
	People	1	42		People	1,1	31
6	Culture	1,2	38	16	Culture	1,42	42
	History	1	31		History	1,5	24
	People	1	56		People	2	40
7	Culture	1	54	17	Culture	1	23
	History	1,5	52		History	1,2	29
	People	1,2	19		People	1	54
8	Culture	1	15	18	Culture	2	44
	History	1	9		History	1,7	20
	People	1,3	101		People	1,9	42
9	Culture	1	26	19	Culture	2,5	40
	History	1	46		History	2,3	32
	People	1,3	53		People	2,2	34
10	Culture	1,1	48	20	Culture	1	45
	History	1	39		History	1	20
	People	1	38		People	1,2	41

We would like to illustrate metaphors of different levels of intensity from the analysed texts with the following examples:

(1) Родившись однажды в России, в нас навсегда прорастает зерно «русскости» и перманентного поиска ответа на вопрос «кто мы такие?»
[Once born in Russia, a seed of “Russianness” and of a permanent search for an answer to the question “who are we?” sprouts in us.]

In example (1), we find a set of metaphors: “the seed of Russianness sprouts” is a metaphor of medium intensity, as it is periodically found in texts of different stylistic orientation and is recorded in the Russian National Corpus (RNC), while the combinations “the seed of Russianness”, “the seed of search”are a development of this metaphor, reflects the novelty of the combination of conceptual features and therefore can be classified as a new metaphor.

(2) Именно люди «пишут историю» и создают культуру.
[It is people who “write history” and create culture.]

In this example, we identify the sustained metaphorical expression “writing history”, which is a dead metaphor.

(3) Жертвенность, перерастающая в великую силу – не-страх,  возможность превозмогать боль и трудности аскетизма, в способность отдавать себя, рождая новое, а потому перерождаясь.
[Sacrifice, growing into a great power – non-fear, the ability to overcome pain and hardships of asceticism, the ability to give oneself, giving birth to the new and therefore being reborn.]

In example (3), we see the metaphor of “sacrifice, growing into a great power”, i.e., interpreting the quality of the people through the properties of the plant, which we believe to be a novel expressive author’s metaphor, as it is not recorded in dictionaries and RNC. The metaphor “the people give birth to the new” correlates with a metaphor of medium intensity, as “give birth to the new” is quite frequent in denoting “the emergence of new ideas”, but in combination with the people it acquires a certain novelty.

(4) Простор на одну шестую суши дан нам как награда и наказание одновременно.
[The space of one-sixth of the land is given to us as a reward and punishment at the same time.]

The metaphor “expanse is given as a reward and a punishment” is clearly a new and authorial contextual metaphor, which is not recorded either in the corpus or in the RNC examples.

(5) Наши предки, положившие свои буйные головы за неприкосновенность этого географического размаха, породили особый исторический ген в крови каждого русского человека – ген хтонической любви к родной земле, который на протяжении всех столетий существования нашего государства играл набатом в крови, когда нужно было встать с печки, надеть доспехи и выйти в чистое поле, чтобы смотреть в глаза неприятелю, и смерти, и победам, и поражениям, и свершениям, и воскрешению этого подвига.
[Our ancestors, who laid down their violent heads for the inviolability of this geographical scope, gave rise to a special historical gene in the blood of every Russian – the gene of chthonic love for their native land, which has played a chime in the blood throughout the centuries of our nation’s existence, when it was necessary to rise from the stove, put on armor and go into a clear field to face the enemy, and death, and victory, and defeat, and accomplishments, and resurrection of this exploit.]

There are several striking metaphors in this excerpt from the essay text: the gene of chthonic love for their native land”, where patriotism is understood as a physiologically inseparable quality, “to face […] and accomplishments and resurrection of this exploit”, where we observe strengthening of the conventional metaphor “face the death” through a successive layering of new meanings. In addition, “lay down violent heads” and “geographical scope” can be identified as conventional metaphors, which gain additional intensity through non-standard usage.

4.3. Correlation between the typology of metaphors and the expression/perception of the author’s opinion

The typology of metaphors reflects different forms of speech impact, so the analysis of their relationship with the expression and perception of opinion in reasoning was also the subject of our analysis. As we pointed out above, the index of the functional typology of metaphors reflects the distribution of metaphors according to their types: structural, ontological and orientational, where the greater value shows the predominance of structural metaphors that play a transformational function.

As a result of the analysis, we found that to express the opinion the authors used more structural metaphors in 15 texts out of 20, also in other 4 texts the author’s opinion was expressed in the second part in MfTi index. This shows that to a large extent, the authors used structural metaphors, which are considered to be the most influential, to express their opinions in 75% of the cases.

 Table 4. Correlation between the typology of metaphors and the expression of authorial opinion 

Text number	Text content	MfTI	Opinion	Text number	Text content	MfTI	Opinion
1	Culture	2	0	11	Culture	2	0
	History	2	0		History	2,1	1
	People	2,2	1		People	1,8	0
2	Culture	2	0	12	Culture	2	0
	History	2	1		History	2	1
	People	2	0		People	2	0
3	Culture	2	1	13	Culture	1,76	0
	History	1,88	0		History	2,15	1
	People	2	0		People	2	0
4	Culture	2	0	14	Culture	2	0
	History	2,12	1		History	2	0
	People	2	0		People	2,1	1
5	Culture	1,86	0	15	Culture	1,94	0
	History	2	0		History	2,1	1
	People	2,2	1		People	2	0
6	Culture	2	1	16	Culture	2,1	0
	History	1,8	0		History	1,88	0
	People	2	0		People	2,16	1
7	Culture	2,1	1	17	Culture	2	0
	History	2	0		History	2,2	1
	People	1,9	0		People	2,14	0
8	Culture	2	0	18	Culture	1,82	1
	History	1,86	0		History	2	0
	People	2,1	1		People	2	0
9	Culture	2,12	0	19	Culture	2,1	1
	History	1,76	0		History	2	0
	People	2	1		People	1,98	0
10	Culture	2,24	1	20	Culture	2	0
	History	2	0		History	1,8	0
	People	2	0		People	2	1

In 10 texts out of 20 the respondents chose the part of the text which has a high MfTI index, i.e. contains the largest number of structural metaphors, which reflect the author’s opinion. In 8 cases, the parts of the texts with average MfTI index scores were chosen, and in 2 cases – with the lowest MfTI index.

Table 5. Results of the analysis of the correlation between the typology of metaphors and the perception of authorial opinion 

Text number	Text content	MfTI	Perceived opinion	Text number	Text content	MfTI	Perceived opinion
1	Culture	2	18	11	Culture	2	31
	History	2	43		History	2,1	37
	People	2,2	101		People	1,8	38
2	Culture	2	60	12	Culture	2	26
	History	2	75		History	2	54
	People	2	27		People	2	26
3	Culture	2	72	13	Culture	1,76	25
	History	1,88	22		History	2,15	46
	People	2	68		People	2	34
4	Culture	2	20	14	Culture	2	32
	History	2,12	33		History	2	32
	People	2	109		People	2,1	42
5	Culture	1,86	66	15	Culture	1,94	16
	History	2	16		History	2,1	59
	People	2,2	42		People	2	31
6	Culture	2	38	16	Culture	2,1	42
	History	1,8	31		History	1,88	24
	People	2	56		People	2,16	40
7	Culture	2,1	54	17	Culture	2	23
	History	2	52		History	2,2	29
	People	1,9	19		People	2,14	54
8	Culture	2	15	18	Culture	1,82	44
	History	1,86	9		History	2	20
	People	2,1	101		People	2	42
9	Culture	2	26	19	Culture	2,1	40
	History	1,76	46		History	2	32
	People	2	53		People	1,98	34
10	Culture	2,24	48	20	Culture	2	45
	History	2	39		History	1,8	20
	People	2	38		People	2	41

Here are some examples of different types of metaphors in the analysed texts:

(6) Люди – самый ценный ресурс нашей страны.
[People is the most valuable resource of our country.]

In this sentence, we identify the standard structural metaphor expressed by the model A is B, where there is a metaphorical understanding of the country’s population as a natural resource.

(7) Европейцы говорят, что наш народ глупый и ленивый, смиренный и утопает в безысходности.
[The Europeans say that our people are stupid and lazy, humble and drowning in despair.]

In this sentence, target domain “people”, used with “drowning in despair” acquires additional meaning, so this metaphor can be classified as ontological.

(8) Но не теряется Россия, а только крепнет во всё повторяющемся ходе времени, проходя огонь и воду, преобразуется и пылает, восстаёт как Феникс.
[But Russia is not lost, but it only strengthens in the repeating flow of time, passing through fire and water, transforming and blazing, rising like Phoenix.]

This sentence is saturated with metaphors, among which we see a repetition of the ontological metaphor, allowing us to understand the country as a living person, which “does not get lost, strengthens, passes through fire and water”. We also consider the metaphor of the flow of time to be an orientation metaphor, as it is based on an underlying corporeal sense of time as a moving object.

(9) Советская эпоха будто открыла фабрику по людям-роботам, а современная Россия оставляет за собой право самой ответить на вопрос национальной самоидентификации.
[The Soviet era seems to have opened a robot-man factory, while modern Russia reserves the right to answer the question of national self-identification itself.]

In example (9), the personification of the country through the verbs “to open, to reserve the right to itself”, which allows us to relate the metaphor used by the author to an ontological one.

(10) History is a thread linking the present and the past, it helps us not to make the mistakes of our ancestors.
[История – это нить, связывающая настоящее и прошлое, она помогает нам не совершать ошибки предков.]

In this example, we also see a structural metaphor, because it is made according to the model “A is B”.

(11) Russian culture is not a melting pot of the cultures of the peoples of Russia, but rather a field, wide and fertile, where any seed thrown grows into boundless expanses of golden ears of wheat, which spill out later in the rolling motifs of the music of Tchaikovsky and Mussorgsky, in the verbal weaves of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, in the broad strokes of the Russian avant-garde and in the ringing beauty of the monasteries on Valaam.
[Русская культура – это не плавильный котел культур народов России, это скорее поле, широкое и благодатное, где любое брошенное семя произрастает в бескрайние просторы золотистых колосьев пшеницы, что разливаются потом в раскатистых мотивах музыки Чайковского и Мусоргского, в словесных переплетениях Толстого и Достоевского, в широких мазках русского авангарда и в звенящей красоте монастырей на Валааме.]

In this example, we can identify the structural metaphor culture is a field, which is then refined in its linguistic form by a number of ontological metaphors, revealing the conceptual attributes of the Russian culture.

5. Discussion

The study shows different degrees of correlation between different aspects of metaphor power in texts and the expression and perception of authorial opinion. For a detailed analysis and discussion of the results, we will present them in tables and figures.

The diagram shows in blue the cases of coincidence of the author’s expression and the density of metaphors. The grey colour shows, on the contrary, the lowest density index. Orange colour represents cases when the author’s opinion was expressed in the text passage where the metaphoricity indexes were the second highest.

Table 7. Correlation between different aspects of metaphor power in texts and the expression of authorial opinion

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total, %
	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
density	–	+	–/+	+	+	+	+	–	+	+	65/20/15
	+	+	+	–/+	–/+	–/+	+	–	+	+
intensity	+	+	+	+	–	+	–	+	+	+	80/5/15
	+	–/+	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
typology	+	–/+	+	+	+	+	+	+	–/+	+	75/20/5
	+	–/+	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	–/+

Table 8. Correlation between different aspects of metaphor intensity in texts and the perception of authorial opinion 

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total, %
	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
density	–/+	+	–	–/+	–/+	–/+	+	–/+	+	+	40/50/10
	–/+	+	+	–/+	–/+	+	–/+	–	+	–/+
intensity	–/+	+	+	–/+	+	–/+	–	+	+	+	50/40/10
	–/+	–/+	–	+	+	–/+	–/+	+	+	–/+
typology	+	–/+	–/+	–/+	–	+	+	+	–/+	+	50/40/10
	–	–/+	+	+	+	–/+	–/+	–/+	+	+

 

Figure 1. Correlation between different aspects of metaphor intensity in texts and the expression/perception of authorial opinion

In regard to utterance formation, in most cases the authors tend to use metaphors in those parts of the text that reflect their own opinion; this is particularly evident in the case of metaphor intensity. It should be noted that the experiment was developed to reveal a non-intentional speech effect, the authors of the texts were simply meant to express an opinion, not to convince the reader of anything. Therefore, we can conclude that even in the case of reasoning aimed at representing one’s opinion, metaphor is subconsciously chosen as a means of reinforcing the persuasiveness of one’s statement. Separately, we note that the average index for the intensity of the texts analysed was 1.23. This indicator, according to the benchmark indices proposed by O. Kalinin, indicates the presence of rational and evaluative influence in these texts (Kalinin 2022b: 402). That is, the authors did not seek to influence the reader’s emotions and the number of vivid authorial metaphors was relatively small, which generally correlates with the experimental target. At the same time, if we calculate the average intensity index for the parts of the text where the author’s opinion was expressed, we get 1.45, which indicates the higher significance of the new metaphors, which carry an emotional and affective impact.

The high level of correlation between the expression of the author's opinion and the use of metaphors of different types, primarily structural and ontological, also deserves separate consideration. Previously, we pointed out that the abundance of structural metaphors indicates the realization of transformational impact, whereas ontological metaphors reflect more additional conceptual meanings, excited by metaphorical transpositions (Kalinin 2022b: 233). The analysis showed that only in one text the author’s opinion was expressed in the part of the text where the index of functional typology of metaphor had the lowest index. In our opinion, this indicates the high importance of structural and ontological metaphors in the context of speech impact in particular when expressing one’s own opinion. The average index of functional typology for all the texts analysed was 2, which, according to the reference values, correlates with a predominantly identification impact (Kalinin 2022b: 402). The authors of the text did not seek to restructure the content of the concepts represented in the texts, metaphors were used mainly to expand the semantics of the target sphere, which in this case was Russia. If we count the MfTI value only for those parts of the text which reflect the author’s opinion, then the index increases to 2.12, which already indicates a weak level of transformational impact, as it shows a greater number of structural metaphors, which not only supplement, but also transform the conceptual content of the target domain. At the same time, the low, in fact, threshold index indicates that the level of this type of impact is still not high.

If we consider the perception of the utterance in relation to the manifestations of the different aspects of metaphor power, we note in Diagram 1 that the number of complete matches, that is, the cases where the majority of respondents perceived the authorial opinion expressed in the part of the text that has the highest value of the density, intensity and functional typology indices, is significantly lower than when the authorial opinion is expressed. Here we can note the increase in the so-called borderline cases, where the perceived authorial opinion coincided with the average value of the indices among the three within the same text, and the small number of cases where the perceived authorial opinion correlated with the least metaphorical in all parameters of the text segment. Note that for all indices this figure was only 10% each. Such numerical indices show that in the perception of opinion, excessive metaphor power, both in terms of metaphor density and in the case of the use of intense and structural metaphors, has the opposite effect. Such statements may appear to be overloaded with metaphors, which prevents adequate cognitive processing of information. 

6. Conclusion

Our study evolved around two research agendas: a) the relationship between non-intentional speech influence in the form of the expression of the author’s opinion and different aspects of the manifestation of the functional potential of metaphors, and b) the relationship between non-intentional speech influence in the form of the perception of the author’s opinion and different aspects of the manifestation of the functional potential of metaphors.

The study showed that in most cases, the authors nonintentionally use more vivid structural metaphors in the parts of the text that reflect their opinion (hypothesis A proved), and the recipients of a speech message sometimes assume those parts of the text that contain the greatest number of vivid structural metaphors to directly express the author’s opinion (hypothesis B is partially confirmed). The findings also showed that that the average metaphoric indices have a greater influence on the perceived authorial opinion. In other words, there is no need for an excessive saturation of the text with vivid images expressed by direct linguistic metaphors in order to create a persuasive speech effect.

Our results are largely consistent with earlier research on the so-called perceived appropriateness of metaphors (Boeynaems et al. 2017a, 2017b, Jones & Estes 2006, Thibodeau & Durgin 2011) which showed that metaphors are indeed an effective means of persuasion, but their use is limited by the principle of perceived aptness.

Thus, the study shows that metaphor is an important and effective means of implicit speech impact, manifesting itself at the cognitive and semantic levels in the form of various effects. At the same time, when using metaphors as a means of representing one's opinion, it is worth paying attention to the fact that excessive metaphor power does not necessarily affect the adequate perception of the author’s intention. We believe that the perception of metaphorical transpositions represented in different linguistic forms is a promising area for future research. Understanding which specific conceptual metaphors are more influential for representatives of different linguacultures in different discursive contexts will be an effective tool for improving marketing strategies and propaganda tools.

About the authors

Oleg I. Kalinin

Military University; Moscow State Linguistic University

Email: okalinin.lingua@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1807-8370

Professor of the Chinese Language Department at Moscow State Linguistic University and the 36th Department at the Military University. He teaches the Chinese language and translation theory, intercultural communication and stylistics. His research interests embrace cognitive linguistics, especially Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the Theory of categorization, discourse analysis, cultural linguistics, intercultural communication and Media linguistics.

Moscow, Russia

Alexander V. Ignatenko

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: ignatenko-av@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9261-4306

holds a Ph. D. in Philology and is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages at the Philological Faculty of RUDN. The main areas of his research interests are intercultural communication, translation studies, cultural linguistics, history of Chinese and Russian literature and comparative studies.

Moscow, Russia

References