Metaphorical Framing In Energy Security Discourses

Critical Metaphor Analysis(CMA),developed from the integration of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis,has been applied to a wide range of discourses,and become one of the predominant research paradigms.So far it has focused on political and media discourses in general.Few studies have been addressed to discourses on energy,in disproportion to its significance in driving a country’s economic growth and leveraging its strategic positions on the international stage.Drawing on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory and framing theory,the present corpus-based study is meant to investigate how different energy organizations metaphorically conceptualize ENERGY SECURITY with a view of disclosing the hidden stance and ideology.To achieve this purpose,two corpora have been constructed,one consisting of 13 energy security reports issued from the IEA within 2007-2017,with a word total of372,841,the other,34 public speeches retrieved from OPEC websites within 2002-2017,with a word total of 71,165.The corpus tool Wmatrix is employed to investigate the patterning of metaphors and identify the dominant framing for ENERGY SECURITY in the two corpora.Metaphors are identified following the procedure of MIPVU.The major findings include:(1)IEA and OPEC share two dominant metaphors in constructing the notion of ENERGY SECURITY.They are: ENERGY SECURITY IS AN OBJECT;ENERGY SECURITY IS PEOPLE.With OBJECTS metaphors,ENERGY SECURITY,an abstract and complicated notion,is conceptualized as tangible objects,which,with attributes in space dimension,can be possessed and controlled.In contrast,PEOPLE metaphors are employed to personify ENERGY SECURITY by means of mapping the attributes of autonomy and interaction with other entities,reflecting their shared perception of risks entailed once we lose control over ENERGY SECURITY or it winsautonomy.These two metaphors are ontological in Lakoff’s terms,both highlighting the tangibility of an abstract and complicated energy phenomenon.(2)As to the difference,IEA’s notion of ENERGY SECURITY is more comprehensive in that it employs more types of metaphors with a multiple of attributes mapped into the target domain.Notably,4 source domains,specific to IEA corpus,are recurring,i.e.MEASUREMENT,MONEY,HEALTH and CONFLICTS.While MONEY metaphors conceptualize SECURITY in terms of economic value and potential cost of risks,notions of MEASUREMENT,such as height,breadth,length,weight and amount are frequently mapped onto the target domain ENERGY SECURITY to highlight the measurability or controllability of SECURITY.IEA also uses HEALTH metaphors to conceptualize SECURITY as a living organism,with a potential of illness,thereby signifying the importance of sustainable development and the prevention of risks.Finally,IEA tends to highlight conflicts or confrontations among diverse types of energy sources as well as the impact of energy sources on environment and sustainable development by recurring CONFLICTS metaphors.In terms of the metaphors specific to OPEC,only one type,i.e.ENERGY SECURITY IS A PLACE/POSITION,has been found.This metaphor is used to construct OPEC’s understanding of SECURITY as a goal or an approachable destination,indicating its confidence in ensuring provision for energy security.(3)Overall,the two organizations adopt diverging metaphorical frames to construct energy security.While OPEC,the major suppliers,tends to frame the issue of energy security as collective responsibility and cooperation,IEA,the camp of major consumers,prefers the economic,health and conflicts frames,signaling its obsession with disruption of stable supply.Expanding the scope of critical metaphor analysis,this study may deepen our understanding of the constructive nature of energy discourses and cast a new light on energy research in general.It is expected to promote further integration of linguistic and social science research.