Introduction: “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
“Critical Discourse Analysis and Metaphor: Toward a Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart first appeared in Critical Discourse Studies in May 2008 (Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 91–106), published by Routledge. This landmark article offers a critical intervention in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by addressing a long-neglected aspect—metaphor. Hart proposes a shift from the widely used Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) to the more dynamically responsive Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT), arguing that CBT is more compatible with the sociocognitive approach of CDA. The article outlines the limitations of CMT when applied to political discourse, particularly its neglect of speaker intention and its deterministic grounding in embodied experience. Instead, CBT allows for metaphors to be treated as strategic, ideologically charged tools in discourse construction. By examining metaphors in the British National Party’s 2005 manifesto—like the migration-as-flood metaphor—Hart demonstrates how blending metaphors not only reflect but shape public cognition, social structure, and policy justification. This has significant implications for literary theory, especially when applied to poetic texts where metaphor is not merely decorative but politically consequential. For example, in metaphor-rich poetry addressing themes of migration, identity, or nationhood, Hart’s framework enables readers to dissect how conceptual blending reinforces dominant narratives or resists them. Thus, the article contributes a powerful analytical tool for scholars in both discourse studies and literary criticism.
Summary of “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
1. CDA’s Neglect of Metaphor
- While CDA has focused on structures like passivization and nominalisation, metaphor has been underexplored.
“Metaphor, on the other hand, has been largely neglected in mainstream CDA” (Hart, 2008, p. 91).
- Yet metaphor is central to how ideology and social reality are constructed.
“Metaphor is ‘central to critical discourse analysis since it is concerned with forming a coherent view of reality'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 28, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
🔹 2. Metaphors as Ideological Tools
- Metaphors shape our understanding and privilege certain perspectives.
“Metaphors are ideological… in so far as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality'” (Chilton & Lakoff, 1995, p. 56, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
- They serve both the interpersonal and ideational functions of language.
“Metaphors also play an important role with regard to both the interpersonal and the ideational function of language” (Hart, 2008, p. 91).
🔹 3. Call for Cognitive Approaches in CDA
- CDA needs a cognitive dimension to explain how discourse produces social knowledge.
“Discourse is produced and interpreted by human individuals interacting with one another” (Chilton, 2005a, p. 23, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
- Cognitive linguistics and CDA both deal with language, cognition, and culture, making the former suitable for metaphor analysis in CDA.
🔹 4. Critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
Hart identifies three major incompatibilities between CMT and CDA:
a) Problem of Focus
- CMT is too abstract and introspective, relying on imagined examples.
“The data CMT presents… are often not attested but rather appeal to native speaker intuition” (Hart, 2008, p. 92).
b) Problem of Motivation
- CMT sees metaphor as an unconscious product of embodiment, ignoring speaker intention.
“Metaphors are ‘chosen by speakers to achieve particular communication goals'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 247, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 93).
c) Problem of Relation
- CMT posits that linguistic expressions merely reflect internal thought structures, while CDA sees discourse as constructing thought.
“In CDA… linguistic representation in discourse can determine, to some extent, conceptual representation” (Hart, 2008, p. 94).
🔹 5. Introduction of Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT)
- CBT focuses on online meaning construction through multiple input spaces.
“Blending can ‘compose elements from the input spaces to provide relations that do not exist in the separate inputs'” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 48, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96).
- The blend is not just a reflection but a site of cognitive activity, where meaning, reasoning, and emotion coalesce.
“Blended spaces are ‘sites for central cognitive work: reasoning… drawing inferences… and developing emotions'” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 115, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97).
🔹 6. Selective Projection and Ideological Framing
- Not all knowledge is projected into the blend—what’s left out is often ideologically significant.
“Speakers may choose to recruit particular structure in order to promote a certain perceived reality” (Hart, 2008, p. 96).
🔹 7. Entrenchment and Social Cognition
- Frequent metaphorical blends become entrenched and shared socially, reinforcing dominant ideologies.
“Integration networks built up dynamically can become entrenched and available to be activated all at once” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 103, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97).
- Such entrenched blends function as social cognitions in Van Dijk’s model.
“Entrenched conceptual blending networks are precisely the mental representations and processes of group members” (Hart, 2008, p. 97).
🔹 8. Three Types of ‘Discourse’ and Metaphor’s Place
- Drawing from Foucault and Fairclough, Hart distinguishes:
- Discourse (concrete): actual talk/text
- Discourse (collective): sets of related statements
- Discourse (abstract): systems of knowledge/practice
- Metaphors travel across all three:
“Synchronically, current conventional uses of metaphor reflect entrenched conceptual blending patterns…. Diachronically… they give rise to entrenched conceptual blending patterns” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).
🔹 9. Case Study: BNP Immigration Metaphors
- Hart analyses metaphors in the British National Party 2005 manifesto to show how metaphor supports racist and exclusionary discourse.
a) Immigration as Water
- ‘Flood of asylum seekers’ uses the topoi of number and danger, making immigrants seem overwhelming and threatening.
“The conceptualisation of an ongoing ‘flood of asylum seekers’ immediately warrants… restrictive immigration policy” (Hart, 2008, p. 100).
b) Nation as Container
- Britain is conceptualised as a full container, suggesting that no more immigration can be ‘absorbed’.
“Britain is full up…” (BNP quote, cited in Hart, 2008, p. 101).
c) Nation as House
- ‘Shut the door’ metaphor frames the nation as private property, evoking ownership and the right to exclude.
“Entry into which only takes place with the permission of the resident” (Hart, 2008, p. 101).
- These metaphors employ a referential strategy (us vs. them) and an evaluative strategy (threat, invasion, dilution).
🔹 10. Conclusion: Toward a Full Framework
- Hart’s approach, using CBT within sociocognitive CDA, enables the microlevel analysis of metaphors with ideological consequences.
- However, he acknowledges the need for quantitative analysis to identify widespread metaphorical patterns.
“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis across different discourse genres” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
| 🧠 Theoretical Term | 📘 Explanation | 📌 Reference / Quotation |
| 🧱 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) | Examines how discourse structures perpetuate social inequality, often through ideologically embedded language. | “Critical discourse analysis (CDA) explores the role of discourse structures in constituting social inequality” (Hart, 2008, p. 91). |
| 🔄 Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) | Views metaphor as cross-domain mapping based on bodily experiences; often criticized for ignoring discourse context and speaker intention. | “CMT posits relationships between pairs of mental representations” (Hart, 2008, p. 92). |
| 🌐 Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) | A dynamic model of meaning construction where mental spaces blend to form emergent conceptual structures. Favored over CMT for CDA. | “Blending can ‘compose elements from the input spaces to provide relations that do not exist in the separate inputs'” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 48, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96). |
| 🧠 Social Cognition | Shared mental representations within a group that link discourse and social structure. Central to sociocognitive CDA. | “Social cognitions… are shared and presupposed by group members” (van Dijk, 1993, p. 257, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97). |
| 📦 Mental Spaces | Temporary conceptual packets activated during discourse; serve as inputs for blending processes. | “Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 113, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 95). |
| ⚗️ Emergent Structure | New conceptual elements created through blending that do not exist in the original input spaces. | “The blend inherits partial structure… and has emergent structure of its own” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 113, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96). |
| 🔎 Selective Projection | The strategic selection of elements from mental spaces into the blend, shaped by communicative or ideological intent. | “Speakers may choose to recruit particular structure in order to promote a certain perceived reality” (Hart, 2008, p. 96). |
| 🧬 Entrenchment | The process through which repeated blending patterns become cognitively fixed and socially shared. | “Integration networks… can become entrenched and available to be activated all at once” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 103, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97). |
| 🏛️ Discourse (Concrete, Collective, Abstract) | Hart distinguishes: (1) discourse as situated talk/text, (2) discourse as recurring patterns, and (3) discourse as systems of knowledge. | “Discourse (abstract) dictates the nature of discourse (concrete)… and vice versa” (Hart, 2008, p. 99). |
| 🌊 Topoi (Danger, Number, Displacement) | Common argumentative schemes in discourse that justify ideological positions, especially in right-wing and racist rhetoric. | “An argumentation schema like this one is defined as topos of number” (Wodak & Sedlak, 2000, p. 233, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 100). |
| 🪟 Container Schema | A conceptual structure with interior, exterior, and boundary used metaphorically to frame nations and inclusion/exclusion. | “A container schema has an inherent ‘logic’… interior and exterior defined by a boundary” (Hart, 2008, p. 102). |
| 🎭 Referential & Evaluative Strategies | Referential strategies define in-groups/out-groups; evaluative strategies judge them positively or negatively. Both are used in racist discourse. | “Referential strategies are used… evaluative strategy is manifested in negative representation of the out-group” (Hart, 2008, p. 99). |
Contribution of “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart to Literary Theory/Theories
🔍 🧩 Bridging Linguistics and Literary Criticism
- Hart integrates cognitive linguistics with critical discourse analysis, offering literary theorists tools to unpack how metaphor constructs ideology in poetic and narrative texts.
“Metaphors are ideological… in so far as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality'” (Chilton & Lakoff, 1995, p. 56, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
🧠 🌀 Expanding the Interpretive Scope of Metaphor
- Unlike classical metaphor theories focused on rhetorical ornamentation, Hart’s framework treats metaphor as a cognitive and discursive act—deepening literary analysis beyond figurative style.
“Metaphor is ‘central to critical discourse analysis since it is concerned with forming a coherent view of reality'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 28, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
📦 🧠 Applying Mental Space Theory to Literature
- Hart’s use of Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) allows readers to visualize meaning construction in narrative or poetic metaphor, emphasizing how emergent structure reshapes understanding.
“The blend inherits partial structure… and has emergent structure of its own” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 113, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96).
🎭 🎯 Reframing Characterization and Plot in Ideological Terms
- His focus on metaphor as a referential and evaluative strategy can be extended to literature to analyze how characters, spaces, or actions are ideologically positioned.
“Referential strategies are used in discourse to represent… social actors… evaluative strategy is manifested in negative representation” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).
🏠 🌍 Nation and Identity Metaphors in Literary Texts
- Literary metaphors that depict the nation as a house, container, or bordered space can be critically re-examined using Hart’s framework for entrenched blending and emotional resonance.
“The nation is conceptualised as a private property… where policymakers have the right to refuse entry” (Hart, 2008, p. 101).
📚 📖 Contributes to Discourse Theory in Literature
- Hart’s distinction among discourse (concrete, collective, abstract) offers literary theorists a way to trace how texts interact with discursive formations, genres, and ideologies.
“Discourse (abstract) dictates the nature of discourse (concrete)… and vice versa” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).
💬 🧭 Enabling Socio-Political Literary Critique
- His model equips scholars to explore how metaphors shape political worldviews in literary texts, especially in postcolonial, migration, and nationalist narratives.
“Metaphors… contribute to a situation where they privilege one understanding of reality over others” (Chilton, 1996, p. 74, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).
🧬 🎓 Grounding Literary Ideology in Cognitive Theory
- Hart shows how literary metaphors become socially entrenched and cognitively shared, which aligns with cultural memory studies and the role of entrenchment in interpretive communities.
“Entrenched conceptual blending networks are… the mental representations and processes of group members” (Hart, 2008, p. 97).
📈 📊 Toward Quantitative Literary Metaphor Studies
- Hart calls for blending qualitative and quantitative analysis of metaphor, paving the way for corpus-based literary criticism.
“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis… to determine which metaphors are used conventionally” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).
Examples of Critiques Through “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
| 🎨 Literary Work | 🧠 Critical Discourse Insight via CDA/CBT (Hart) | 🔍 Key Metaphors / Discursive Strategies |
| 🌊 Chinua Achebe – Things Fall Apart | Colonial discourse frames African tradition as irrational, chaotic, and destined to “fall apart.” Hart’s framework shows how metaphors of disorder justify colonial control. | “Igbo culture” as chaos vs. “colonialism” as order → metaphor of containment, civilisation as light vs. darkness (referential & evaluative strategy) |
| 🧱 Margaret Atwood – The Handmaid’s Tale | Metaphors of fertility, control, and enclosure (e.g., the female body as a container) align with Hart’s container schema and selective projection, reinforcing gender-based power. | Wombs as political territory; doors, walls, and eyes evoke container schema and the “nation as house” metaphor (topos of danger + preservation) |
| 🔥 William Blake – London | Blake critiques state ideology through metaphors of imprisonment and infection. Hart’s concept of entrenched blending reveals how discourse sustains suffering. | “Mind-forged manacles” → metaphor for ideological control; plague, cry, and curse reflect evaluative strategies against hegemonic discourse |
| 🐍 Seamus Heaney – Punishment | The speaker uses metaphors of burial and silence to show complicity in violence. Hart’s idea of metaphor as ideology helps unpack how guilt and justice are shaped by discourse. | Bog woman as sacrifice → metaphor of containment and purification; selective projection hides shared societal blame (referential strategy: us vs. victim) |
✳️ Key Concepts from Hart Used Across These Critiques
- 🧠 Conceptual Blending: How mental spaces combine to produce emergent meanings in literary metaphor.
- 🔎 Selective Projection: What elements are foregrounded or excluded in metaphors to support ideology.
- 🎭 Referential/Evaluative Strategies: How language positions characters or themes as good/bad, in-group/out-group.
- 🧬 Entrenchment: How recurring metaphors become ideologically normalized in literary discourse.
- 📦 Container Schema: Used to explore imagery of boundaries, restriction, purity, and belonging.
Criticism Against “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
❗ ⚖️ Over-reliance on Cognitive Models
- While Hart successfully integrates Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) with CDA, critics may argue that it over-intellectualizes discourse by framing metaphor primarily as a cognitive phenomenon, potentially neglecting material conditions and historical contexts.
❗ 🔬 Limited Empirical Validation
- Hart advocates for the cognitive entrenchment of metaphor through discourse, but offers limited empirical data to substantiate how often specific blends occur across genres or populations.
“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis…” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).
❗ 🚫 Dismissal of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
- Some may view Hart’s critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) as overly rigid. While he treats CBT and CMT as “competing,” many linguists (e.g., Grady et al.) argue for their complementarity, not conflict.
❗ 📉 Reduction of Metaphor to Ideological Function
- Hart often ties metaphor directly to ideology and strategy (e.g., immigration discourse), which may risk simplifying metaphor’s poetic, emotional, or ambiguous functions, especially in literature or art.
❗ 🌍 Limited Cultural Flexibility
- The blending framework as presented is based mostly on Western political discourse (e.g., the British National Party). It may not be as adaptable across non-Western rhetorical traditions without significant modification.
❗ 🗺️ Under-theorization of Power Structures
- Although Hart discusses social cognition and inequality, his model doesn’t fully address macro-level power systems (e.g., capitalism, patriarchy) in the way traditional CDA (e.g., Fairclough, Wodak) does.
❗ 🧱 Highly Technical Jargon
- The heavy use of cognitive linguistics terminology (e.g., “mental space integration,” “vital relations,” “entrenchment”) may limit accessibility for scholars outside the field or from humanities/literary backgrounds.
❗ 📚 Singular Case Study Focus
- The BNP manifesto is the sole example in the paper’s application section, raising questions about generalizability. Critics might ask: Can this framework apply equally well to literature, film, or visual art?
Representative Quotations from “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart with Explanation
| 🎯 Quotation | 📘 Explanation |
| 🧱 “Critical discourse analysis (CDA) explores the role of discourse structures in constituting social inequality.” (p. 91) | This foundational quote defines CDA’s purpose: to reveal how language contributes to power relations and oppression. |
| 🌊 “Metaphors are ideological… in so far as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality.'” (Chilton & Lakoff, 1995, p. 56, cited on p. 91) | Hart emphasizes that metaphors aren’t neutral—they actively shape perception and ideology, which is central to his analysis. |
| 🧠 “Discourse is produced and interpreted by human individuals interacting with one another.” (Chilton, 2005a, p. 23, cited on p. 91) | Highlights the cognitive foundation of discourse interpretation, justifying the use of cognitive linguistics within CDA. |
| 🔄 “CMT posits relationships between pairs of mental representations… [while] BT allows for more than two.” (p. 92) | Contrasts Conceptual Metaphor Theory with Blending Theory, showing why Hart favors CBT for richer metaphor analysis. |
| 🔍 “Speakers may choose to recruit particular structure in order to promote a certain perceived reality.” (p. 96) | This statement introduces selective projection, a key mechanism by which metaphors support ideological positioning. |
| ⚗️ “The blend inherits partial structure from the input spaces, and has emergent structure of its own.” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 113, cited on p. 96) | Describes how new, ideologically loaded meanings are constructed during discourse through conceptual blending. |
| 🧬 “Entrenched conceptual blending networks are… the mental representations and processes of group members.” (p. 97) | Shows how metaphors become socially shared and naturalized, forming part of collective cognition and discourse. |
| 🧱 “Referential strategies are used… to represent social actors… evaluative strategy is manifested in negative representation.” (p. 99) | Demonstrates how metaphor is used to construct identities and values in political and ideological discourse. |
| 🏠 “The nation is conceptualised as a private property… where policymakers have the right to refuse entry.” (p. 101) | Analyses metaphors in immigration discourse, using the house/container schema to expose nationalist ideology. |
| 📊 “A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis… to determine which metaphors are used conventionally.” (p. 102) | Acknowledges the need for empirical breadth, calling for more data-driven studies to strengthen metaphor analysis in CDA. |
Suggested Readings: “Critical Discourse Analysis And Metaphor: Toward A Theoretical Framework” by Christopher Hart
- Hart, Christopher. “Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework.” Critical discourse studies 5.2 (2008): 91-106.
- Blommaert, Jan, and Chris Bulcaen. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 29, 2000, pp. 447–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025.
- Davidson, Donald. “What Metaphors Mean.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 5, no. 1, 1978, pp. 31–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342976. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025.
- Chilton, Paul, and Mikhail Ilyin. “Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the ‘Common European House.'” Discourse & Society, vol. 4, no. 1, 1993, pp. 7–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42887835. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025.