The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse, and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we examine the notion of ‘framing’ as a function of metaphor from three interrelated perspectives—cognitive, discourse-based, and practice-based—with the aim of providing an adaptable blueprint of good practice in framing analysis. We bring together cognitive and discourse-based approaches in an integrated multi-level framework, and demonstrate its value to both theory and practice by applying it to a corpus-based study of violence-related metaphors for cancer. Through the application of this framework, we show that there are merits in applying the notion of framing at different levels of generality in metaphor analysis (conceptual metaphors, metaphor scenarios, and linguistic metaphors), depending on one’s research aims. We warn that researchers and practitioners need to remain aware of what conclusions can and cannot be drawn at each level, and we show the theoretical and practical advantages of taking all three levels into account when considering the use of metaphor for communicating about sensitive topics such as cancer. We emphasize the need for a ‘rich’ definition of framing, including aspects such as agency, evaluation, and emotion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · Cited by 20,632
Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm
Entman, R. M. (1993) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x · Cited by 16,203
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.
Tiryakian, E. A., & Goffman, E. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091926 · Cited by 7,500
A FRAMEWORK FOR REPRESENTING KNOWLEDGE
Minsky, M. (1988) · Readings in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50018-2 · Cited by 4,536
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803864 · Cited by 3,316
Ortony, A. (1979) · Cited by 2,159
MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse
Group, P. (2007) · Metaphor and Symbol · doi:10.1080/10926480709336752 · Cited by 2,157
(1978) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 2,128
Frames and the semantics of understanding
Fillmore, C. J. (1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,069
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behaviour
Goffman, E. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,449
Cited by
“Not Soldiers but Fire-fighters” – Metaphors and Covid-19
Semino, E. (2021) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989 · Cited by 412
Self-citation“Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” framing the LGBT subject in online comments
Baider, F. (2018) · Lodz Papers in Pragmatics · doi:10.1515/lpp-2018-0004 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Semino, E., DEMJÉN, Z., & DEMMEN, J.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-09-21
- Pages
- amw028
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2521711156
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 24.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse, and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/applin/amw028
- The paper
- Semino, E., DEMJÉN, Z., & DEMMEN, J. (2016). An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse, and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.