| Linguistics research has demonstrated the commonness and functions of metaphors to carry cognitive frames, which influence the way people understand and act on information. This work conveys the results of three analyses employed to describe cognitive frames: forms of linguistic metaphors used, functions of systematic metaphors that emerged, and cross-domain mappings of conceptual metaphors evidenced. The analyses were used to examine the use of metaphors in Puerto Rican political discourse during a 105 th U.S. Congressional hearing about the island's political status. The results reveal that the dominant forms of linguistic metaphors were 'A [does] B' (i.e., verbal metaphors) and nominal metaphors with implied topics. The results also show that metaphor functions can be described by the combination of purpose (persuasive or informative) and approach (affective or cognitive). Through this description, the study finds that most systematic metaphors in the hearing functioned to persuade through both cognitive and affective approaches (e.g., to justify, legitimatize, or frame, and to foster group solidarity, ridicule, or appeal to emotions, among others). The major topics conveyed metaphorically were the status options and the status resolution. The most relevant conceptual metaphors include the QUEST (pro-commonwealth), PLAGUE (pro-independence), and ECOSYSTEM (pro-U.S. statehood) metaphors. The study concludes that the political status of Puerto Rico was approached from very different understandings of what each political status alternative entailed and how each could be attained. Limitations of the methods, like determining basic meaning for metaphor identification and semantic relatedness in the grouping of systematic metaphors, are addressed and suggestions for future research are made. |
