Skip to main content

Foids are worse than animals. A cognitive linguistics analysis of dehumanizing metaphors in online discourse Cover

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Foids are worse than animals. A cognitive linguistics analysis of dehumanizing metaphors in online discourse

Topics in Linguistics

Volume 21 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

By: Ewelina Prażmo

Open Access

|Dec 2020

Abstract

The aim of the article is to examine the language used by an emerging online community known as incels. Incels are “involuntarily celibate” men who gather online to share their frustration and resentment. They blame their predicament on their alleged ugliness, as well as on the structure of modern Western society in general, and women’s behaviour in particular. Hate speech and violent language flourish on incel online forums to such an extent that most of their websites are taken down, one by one, due to breaches of rules around violent content. In the present article I aim to analyze the language used by incels, focusing on the dehumanizing metaphors used in order to describe women, who are the main target of incels’ hatred. This paper was realized within the theoretical framework of cognitive linguistics and critical discourse analysis with special emphasis on conceptual metaphor theory.

References

Bastian, B. and Haslam, N., 2011. Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social. Psychology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 295–303.10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berberović, S. and Mujagić, M., 2017. A marriage of convenience or an amicable divorce: Metaphorical blends in the debates on Brexit. ExELL, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–24.10.2478/exell-2018-0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bermingham, A. et al. 2009. Combining social network analysis and sentiment analysis to explore the potential for online radicalization. In: 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 231–236.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brandt, L. and Brandt, P.A., 2005. Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 216–249.10.1075/arcl.3.12bra
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burris, V., Smith, E. and Strahm, A., 2000. White supremacist networks on the internet. Sociological Focus, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 215–235.10.1080/00380237.2000.10571166
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Charteris-Black, J., 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230000612
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Costello, K. and Hodson, G., 2014. Explaining dehumanization among children: The interspecies model of prejudice. The British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 175–197.10.1111/bjso.12016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Crisp, P. et al. The Pragglejaz Group, 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 1–39.10.1207/s15327868ms2201_1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Donnelly, D. et al. 2001. Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 159–169.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2003. Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en Communication, vol. 19: Sémiotique cognitive — Cognitive Semiotics, pp. 57-86.10.14428/rec.v19i19.48413
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fontecha, A.F. and Jiménez Catalán, R.M., 2003. Semantic derogation in animal metaphor: A contrastive-cognitive analysis of two male/female examples in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 771–797.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00127-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gerstenfeld, P.B., Grant, D.R. and Chiang, C.-P., 2003. Hate online: A Content analysis of extremist internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 29–44.10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00013.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gibbs, R.W., 2015. Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 90, pp. 73–76.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ging, D., 2017. Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men Masculinities, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 638-657.10.1177/1097184X17706401
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gotell, L. and Dutton, E., 2016. Sexual violence in the ‘manosphere’: Antifeminist men’s rights discourses on rape. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 65-80.10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grady, J., 2005. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1595–1614.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grady, J., Coulson, S. and Oakley, T., 1999. Blending and metaphor. In: G. Steen & R. Gibbs, eds. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp. 101–124.10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hart, C., 2008. Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 91–106.10.1080/17405900801990058
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haslam, N., 2006. Dehumanization: An Integrative Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 252–264.10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hodson, G., MacInnis, C.C. and Costello, K., 2014. (Over)valuing “humanness” as an aggravator of intergroup prejudices and discrimination. In: P. G. Bain, J. Vaes, & J.-P. Leyens, eds. Humanness and Dehumanization. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 86–110.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jaki, S., et al. 2019. Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum: Linguistic analysis and automatic detection. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 240–268.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jane, E.A., 2018. Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating rapeglish from the manosphere with a random rape threat generator. International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 661–680.10.1177/1367877917734042
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Khondker, H. H., 2011. Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 675–679.10.1080/14747731.2011.621287
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Koller, V., 2005. Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 199–224.10.1177/0957926505049621
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krzeszowski, T.P., 1997. Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa: Energeia.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lakoff, G., 1991. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify War in the Gulf. Peace Research, vol. 23, no. 2/3, pp. 25–32.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M., 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marwick, A.E., Caplan, R., 2018. Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543–559.10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Müller, K., Schwarz, C., 2018. Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. [Accessed 10 January 2020]. Available at: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/crschwarz/fanning-flames-hate.pdf10.2139/ssrn.3082972
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Musolff, A., 2012. The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 301–310.10.1080/17405904.2012.688300
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Omotoyinbo, F.R., 2014. Online radicalization: the net or the netizen? Social Technologies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 51–61.10.13165/ST-14-4-1-04
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Perez, N.P., 2013. Roles of women in advertising: The objectification of women and the shift to an empowering ad frame. [Accessed 10 January 2020]. Available at: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22407
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prażmo, E., 2019. “Leftie snowflakes” and other metaphtonymies in the British political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 371–392.10.1075/jlp.17073.pra
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prażmo, E. and Augustyn, R., 2020. Parasites, herbivores and dried fish: Dehumanizing metaphorical blends in Japanese. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 148-167.10.17576/gema-2020-2002-09
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ribeiro, M.H. et al. 2020. The Evolution of the manosphere across the web. arXiv: Computers and Society. [Accessed 22 August 2020]. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07600
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rigato, E. and Minelli, A., 2013. The great chain of being is still here. Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-6.10.1186/1936-6434-6-18
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schröder, U., 2015. Metaphorical blends and their function in discourse on society: A cross-cultural study. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 50–78.10.1075/cogls.2.1.03sch
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Semino, E., 2010. Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 250–274.10.1075/etc.3.2.07sem
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Soral, W., Bilewicz, M. and Winiewski, M., 2018. Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive Behavior, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 136–146.10.1002/ab.21737
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steen, G., 2010. When is metaphor deliberate? In: Selected Papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival. pp. 43–63.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steen, G., 2014. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp.179–197.10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.179
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steen, G., 2017. Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.1–24.10.1515/ip-2017-0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steen, G., Reijnierse, G. and Burgers, C., 2014. When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 12, [Accessed 15 April 2019]. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thibodeau, P. and Boroditsky, L., 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 2, [Accessed 23 January 2019]. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.001678210.1371/journal.pone.0016782
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tipler, C.N. and Ruscher, J.B., 2019. Dehumanizing representations of women: The shaping of hostile sexist attitudes through animalistic metaphors. Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 109–118.10.1080/09589236.2017.1411790
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Torok, R., 2013. Developing an explanatory model for the process of online radicalization and terrorism. Security Informatics, vol. 2, no. 6. [Accessed 10 May 2019]. Available at: https://security-informatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-8532-2-610.1186/2190-8532-2-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Townsend, E., 2014. Hate speech or genocidal discourse? An examination of anti-Roma sentiment in contemporary Europe. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, vol. 11, no. 1. [Accessed 23 May 2019]. Available at: https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/3287/437010.5130/portal.v11i1.3287
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H.-J., 2006. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. New York:Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van Dijk, T.A., 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 249–283.10.1177/0957926593004002006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waśniewska, M., 2017. The socio-parasite and bio-parasite metaphorical concepts in racist discourse. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies, vol. 17, pp. 46–61.10.15290/cr.2017.17.2.03
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waśniewska, M., 2018. A dog or a wolf – The role of connotations in animalistic metaphors and the process of dehumanisation. New Horizons in English Studies, vol. 3, pp. 3-17.10.17951/nh.2018.3.3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wills, D., 2009. At war with metaphor: Media, propaganda, and racism in the war on terror. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2020-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6504

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 16 - 27

Published on: Dec 31, 2020

Published by: Sciendo

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

cognitive linguistics,

cognitive semantics,

conceptual metaphor,

dehumanizing metaphor,

online discourse

Related subjects:

Linguistics and semiotics,

Theoretical frameworks and disciplines,

Linguistics, other,

Philosophy of language

© 2020 Ewelina Prażmo, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 21 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Previous article