Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a computational framework to identify and analyze discourse metaphors by considering the interplay between source domains and semantic frames. They apply this framework to climate change and immigration discourse, revealing nuanced frame-level associations that differentiate issue portrayals and political ideologies. The analysis shows that even within the same source domain (e.g., ANIMAL), different semantic frames (e.g., uncontrollability vs. victimization) are used to shape understanding.
Metaphorical framing isn't just about the broad source domain (like "ANIMALs"), but the specific semantic frames *within* that domain, revealing how subtle linguistic choices shape understanding of complex issues like climate change and immigration.
Metaphors are powerful framing devices, yet their source domains alone do not fully explain the specific associations they evoke. We argue that the interplay between source domains and semantic frames determines how metaphors shape understanding of complex issues, and present a computational framework that allows to derive salient discourse metaphors through their source domains and semantic frames. Applying this framework to climate change news, we uncover not only well-known source domains but also reveal nuanced frame-level associations that distinguish how the issue is portrayed. In analyzing immigration discourse across political ideologies, we demonstrate that liberals and conservatives systematically employ different semantic frames within the same source domains, with conservatives favoring frames emphasizing uncontrollability and liberals choosing neutral or more ``victimizing'' semantic frames. Our work bridges conceptual metaphor theory and linguistics, providing the first NLP approach for discovery of discourse metaphors and fine-grained analysis of differences in metaphorical framing. Code, data and statistical scripts are available at https://github.com/julia-nixie/ConceptFrameMet.
