Use of conceptual metaphor in Sam Omatseye’s “In Touch” column in The Nation Nigerian newspaper
List of Authors
  • Atolagbe, Oluwadmilare Daniel

Keyword
  • Conceptual metaphor, primary and complex metaphors, source domain, target domain, cognitive semantics

Abstract
  • Conceptual metaphors “are abstract structures of thought that function as a conceptual frame in terms of which single lexical items are produced and comprehended” (Muller, 2008). This study is motivated by how a Nigerian newspaper columnist, Sam Omatseye, uses conceptual metaphors to aid in the comprehension of his ideas by the readers. A cognitive semantic approach to metaphor is used as the theoretical framework for this study. Using a stratified sampling method, the study chooses all the February 2015 editions of “In Touch” by Sam Omatseye in The Nation to drive home its point. The study found that Mr Omatseye deploys conceptual metaphors and uses metaphors from several source domains to express his target domains clearly. The paper concludes that studying conceptual metaphors throws additional insights into the transactional function of language and provides a helpful tool for understanding how language can be effectively manipulated to attract readers’ attention.

Reference
  • 1. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    2. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Semantics, 4(4), 335–370.
    4. Cruse, D.A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    5. Danesi, M. (2004). Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
    6. Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    7. Hart, C. (2007). Moving beyond metaphor in the cognitive linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In C. Hart (Ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    8. Koller, V. & Semino, E. (2009). Metaphor, politics and gender: a case study from Germany. In K. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp. 9-35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Kothari, C.R. (2014). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International Limited Publishers.
    10. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
    11. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.
    12. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486.
    13. Lakoff, G. (1992). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf. In M. Putz (Ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution: Studies in honour of Rene Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. (pp. 463-481). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    14. Lobner, S. (2002). Understanding semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    15. Lorenzetti, M. I. (2010). Temperature terms and their metaphorical usages in English and Italian: A contrastive study. In 34th LAUD International Symposium Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation in its structural, conceptual and cultural dimensions. (pp. 585-604).
    16. Muller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: a dynamic view. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    17. Saeed, J. (2009). Semantics. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. www.thenationonlineng.net.
    18. Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.