Which metaphor describes 2018

metaphorik.de 28/2018

The cognitive metaphor theory as used by Lakoff and Johnson in different studies, but above all in their much-cited treatise Metaphors we live by (1980) is known to usher in a turning point in thinking about metaphors. This is not the place to fully appreciate this theory. (Most of the studies cited below that are more relevant to our topic are based on the theory presented in this paper.) Rather, we can leave the following list of some of the main theses of the cognitive approach. Pielenz and which will be referred to several times in the course of this article:

  1. Man is conceptually structured.
  2. Man's conceptual system determines his perceptions and actions.
  3. The conceptual system of man is essentially metaphorical.
  4. Human actions and perceptions are essentially metaphorical (Pielenz 1993: 66).

Wehling also uses these basic statements, which build on one another, in her recently published book Political framing (2016), which in its essayistic style is conceived for the interested layman, but also a concise, formally documented and v. a. practical compendium at hand. The tenor of these statements leads to the formulation of a fifth thesis, which is also taken into account by Pielenz again and again, but which was not explicitly included in the catalog cited above:

  1. Parts of the human system are built up and activated by incoming - in many cases: verbally conveyed - information.

This is a separate formulation. Wehling only speaks of language as the “control center of our thinking” (2016: 82). Thesis 5 is based on the conviction that incoming information does not only have to be conveyed linguistically and that other semiotic resources such as images and music can also function as such “control centers”. Especially in the discourse on metaphor - the following remarks in some places also testify to this - the proximity of the “language image” (the metaphor) to the “material image” (whatever materiality: photography, painting, etc.) cannot be denied ( see Stöckl 2004: vi). According to Stöckl, when processing material and linguistic images, a recipient can fall back on conceptual structures “which provide the same cognitive performance and functions for both” (2004: 226). He calls the relationship between image and metaphorical expression “functional isomorphism” (ibid.).

And finally, one last thesis must be mentioned, which becomes important in the following:

  1. The construction and activation of parts of the human system always takes place according to culture-specific rules.

This fact has also been described in detail by Pielenz (cf. 1993: 87ff., 161–171); [1] it is only mentioned again here in the concise form of a thesis.

The catalog of theses mentioned, which, by the way, was also published by Lakoff / Wehling (2007 /42016) is carried out in monographic breadth and can certainly also be expanded, should help in the following to take a closer look at a current phenomenon of high social relevance, namely the use and discursive functions of metaphors in current speeches about the immigration of refugees. Like other concepts that are difficult to grasp because they are abstract, the entry of numerous migrants, which is referred to as the “refugee crisis” [2] and often perceived as a threat, is made tangible and evaluated with the help of metaphorical expressions. Saiz de Lobado / Bonomi (2015) and Wehling (2016: 167–179) for the Italian and Spanish discourse have presented a synoptic representation of the most common conceptual metaphors that have been repeatedly activated in the refugee discourse since 2010. The conceptual metaphors are well known: By far the most popular image donor area is that of a devastating force of nature, followed by warlike and biblical allusions (cf. Saiz de Lobado / Bonomi 2015: 122–126). Specifically - to name just a few nominal metaphors at this point - we are talking about migrantselectricity, from inflow the refugees; the asylum seekers are considered wave, flood, Tsunami, avalanche and the like. Most of the image donor areas that are referred to in the talk about refugees conjure up unstoppable catastrophe scenarios.

In the following, however, the main focus will not be on the “construction and use of language images” (as the subtitle of the German version by Lakoff / Johnson 1980/2011), but rather the questioning or the targeted social deconstruction of such metaphorical ones Twists. The emphasis should not be placed primarily on the discursive use of metaphors by the original broadcasters, but rather puts the recipient in the foreground, who consciously questions this language medium, which has always been misused for manipulation. In this respect, the question that Pirazzini (1998) has already raised, but answered in a different way than the one presented here, is taken up again: “How can we refute established metaphors?” That many of the metaphors mentioned are now “established”, almost already to the "common sense" (Lakoff / Wehling 2007 /42016: 31) have advanced in certain social classes, e.g. B. the simple fact that most of the current metaphors such as “refugee flow” and “the boat is full!” Have already been used in earlier discourses about the influx of foreigners, for example during the time of National Socialism and in the 1990s ( see Hönigsperger 1991).

In accordance with the stated objective, the present article does not primarily focus on the often negatively connoted assessment of the migration movement by politicians [3] and parts of political reporting [4], but rather on the communicative strategies that have been pursued by various social actors to point out the possibly problematic use of metaphors in those speeches and texts. However, that does not mean that some politicians and journalists are not also sensitized to the topic. All the primary sources consulted come from the web, which is known to revolutionize conventional communication practices, abolish the role of citizens as mere recipients and, in this regard, inter alia. has the potential to become an effective democratic instrument. More precisely, journalistic blogs and the blog or reader comments referring to them, other journalistic web formats as well as online publications, YouTube videos, tweets and Facebook pages (cf. 5.1) were used. In this context, a theoretical-systematic approach is pursued, which is why the analysis necessarily remains cursory and is limited to a few, but meaningful examples. It will be shown that most of the "operations" (2011: 198ff.) Presented by Debatin in 1995 and taken up again synoptically in 2011 (2011: 198ff.) For critical metaphor reflection can also be found in the deconstruction of the metaphors mentioned above. On the other hand, Debatin's list can also be supplemented with further strategies for criticizing metaphors.

The heading of this section refers to an essay by Umberto Eco, which inter alia. The following states:

Having an enemy is not only important in order to define one's own identity, but also in order to build up an obstacle against which one can demonstrate one's own value system and by combating it one can prove one's own worth. Therefore, if you don't have an enemy, you have to fabricate one (Eco 2011/2016: 9).

The enemy in the current European political discourse is not least the refugees, who are sometimes more, sometimes less subtly described as such in the daily reporting, by focusing on their threatening otherness:

Il discorso dominante sull’immigrazione e i suoi protagonisti, più che risaltare le affinità e i punti di contatto, tende a mettere in evidenza le differenze (spesso negative) rispetto a l’emittente della comunicazione (Saiz de Lobado / Bonomi 2015: 116).

According to Eco (2011/2016: passim), this is the main component in the fabrication of the enemy. Since Eco pursues a different emphasis, he does not go into more detail in his essay, which is well worth reading, that the "fabrication" of the enemy, which he describes as indispensable, is carried out in many cases through the use of metaphors.

Since images of the enemy should be conveyed in an intersubjectively plausible manner, they are integrated into an argumentative context. The metaphor functions in such a system, as in Pielenz’s outstanding study at the latest Reasoning and metaphor has become clear as “a Disposal space or Bundle of inference rules“(Pielenz 1993: 105; italics in the original). This idea will be dealt with in the following. According to Pielenz, metaphors are an integral part of everyday and scientific argumentation. In this respect, they show a parallel to the Aristotelian topic (cf. 1993: 13 and especially 119-139). The argumentative logic of a metaphor such as that of the wave, flood or avalanche of refugees could thus be represented in a simplified manner using the following classic syllogism:

Function in the syllogism

Reasoning steps

Text-pragmatic function

Premise 1 (P1),
Major sentence

Waves / floods / avalanches are dangerous.

Presumed knowledge of the world or experience that is activated on the basis of the text metaphor

Premise 2 (P2),

Refugees are waves / floods / avalanches.

Textual metaphor

Conclusion (S)

Ergo: Refugees are dangerous.

Explicit or Implied Conclusion

(P = premise; S = conclusion)

Through the use of a textual metaphor (e.g. "flood of refugees") (P2), which can be described as an update of a conceptual metaphor (migration movement as a force of nature), the sender activates the knowledge relevant for interpretation in the recipient via the image donor area (P1) . [5] This referencing of two different concepts on the transmitter side causes the recipient to project features of the image donor onto the image recipient and finally to a corresponding inference (S). The discussed syllogism can be illustrated in a slightly different form using the argumentation model of Öhlschläger (1979: 99) also used by Pielenz (1993: 52) as follows:

Fig. 1: Argumentation model according to Öhlschläger (1979: 99) and application

The broadcaster uses the metaphor of the “wave of refugees” as an argument to support the conclusion that needs to be legitimized, that is, “Refugees are dangerous”, which is still in question, by suggesting the analogy between people entering the country with a threat to nature. If Pielenz (1993: 105) uses the metaphor as "Disposal space or Bundle of inference rules“Describes, he means the conceptual metaphor - in this case: migration movement as a natural disaster - which is evoked by the textual metaphor as an argument and at the same time also activates the world knowledge leading to the conclusion. As Pielenz (1993: 30f.) Further observes, the final rule or final presupposition, on the basis of which the inference process takes place, “need not be explicitly explained - it is implicit as the basis of the step from the date [sc. Argument] for conclusion included in every argument ”. And also can just be in the order correctness endeavored political speech, which in this case remains unspoken, which is all too clear and therefore worthy of sanction. The suggestive power of the metaphor lies in this shortened argumentative three-step, which the recipient has to supplement. In this respect, the textual metaphor also functions as a Face savingStrategy.

In terms of argumentation theory, recipients are susceptible to manipulation if they equate the validity of a syllogism with its truthfulness. The validity only denotes the logical stringency with which S can be derived from P1 and P2. The truth content, on the other hand, results from the agreement of the premises with the given reality. Pielenz (1993: 18) goes into this essential difference with the following example:

Function in the syllogism

Reasoning steps


All fish have wings.


Whales are fish.


Whales have wings.

This syllogism can claim validity, but is based on untrue premises. The difference between validity and truth is easy to see through here, as the average recipient knows how to correctly assess the truth of this statement on the basis of his or her knowledge of the world - if it cannot be located in a fictional framework, for example. However, this is not always the case with metaphorical reasoning. Insofar as the metaphor brings to light certain ways of reception and suppresses others, it functions as a basis of legitimation for certain, also shortening and therefore problematic conclusions. These, in turn, are not perceived as such, because they can certainly claim argumentative validity and plausibility (but not truth conformity) for themselves.

The theses (3) and (4) of the cognitive metaphor theory mentioned above (see Chapter 1) emphasize that people can only perceive facts, form thoughts and ultimately control their actions with the help of metaphorical systems. However, as linguists from Bühler (1934/1982: 179) to Wehling (2016: 72, 80) repeatedly point out, metaphors are highly selective and are therefore also suitable for the ideological perspective of certain facts. Such possibly manipulative metaphors are used every day in political discourse and reporting related to it (see Lakoff / Wehling 2007 /42016). The fact that parts of our perceptions, thought processes and actions are linguistically controlled externally and are therefore subject to a certain automatism - which is also open to abuse by third parties - can seem fatalistic. The political discourse, however, is not a one-way street, but rather a dialogical one. And every dialogue is about negotiating the content and the appropriate expressions to convey it. So it is primarily up to the recipient to see through the manipulative use of language. Where the enemy has already been 'fabricated' with (or without) the aid of metaphors, a mature, critical and democratic society must endeavor to deconstruct such images of the enemy. This concern can be met in the form of "conscious journalism", as Lakoff / Wehling (2007 /42016: 176ff.). But institutionally organized social organs can also be created which take on the function of an authority striving for objectivity and diversity of perspectives. The public description of the diversity of opinions and counter-opinions then functions as a social corrective to the mediation of individual worldviews by politicians and parties, which often and intentionally remain fragmentary in relation to reality.

In the following sections the aim will be to collect “counter-argumentative techniques” (Pirazzini 1998: 174) that start from a given argumentation that is perceived as manipulative through metaphors. Because although you can use the power of Metaphors - this can be agreed with the cognitive metaphor theory - not in principle escape, but very well the manipulative power single and classified as problematic by a collective Metaphors. The following is a description of the communicative strategies that can be used to achieve this.

Debatin has already compiled “six different operations” (2011: 198) for the critique of metaphors. The following list is based on his own synoptic presentation (cf. 2011: 198–201). The individual types of metaphor construction are exemplified using the example of the refugee metaphorelectricity. (1) The first strategy is to Revival and (re-) metaphorization faded metaphors and other lexicalized expressions to uncover the underlying structuring conceptual metaphor or the image donor area and its discursive implications. The talk of the refugeeelectricity In many European countries, as some of the examples cited so far in the footnote apparatus have shown, a metaphor that has meanwhile become lexicalized, which is often even regarded as unproblematic by its users. Nevertheless, this textual metaphor belongs to the concept metaphor refugee as a force of nature and subtly favors the description of the fugitive as a real threat. The remetaphorization is intended to bring this unconscious final process into consciousness. (2) A second strategy is that metaphorical extension or in the creative development of a given conceptual metaphor. This strategy could be used in the current refugee discourse, for example, if one were to speak of refugeesstream ultimately also to stimulate the mills of western economies. (3) Furthermore, given metaphors can be a Change and transformation experienced, d. H. the previous intention behind a use of metaphors is turned into the opposite by a reinterpretation. With regard to the flow of refugees, for example, the positive property of water as a giver of life could be emphasized instead of just talking about the threat posed by large masses of water (the example in (2) already includes such a positive reinterpretation). (4) A metaphor can also go through targeted literal taking, so to speak deconstructed from within. Water currents, for example, can serve as a prerequisite for a wide variety of sports. Such connotations are not activated in the current refugee debate due to their lack of relevance. If they did, they could possibly reduce the entire conceptual metaphor to absurdity. (5) A metaphor is contradicted e.g. B. also by the fact that the issue at hand is conceptualized using a different metaphor. Debatin calls this phenomenon "Metaphor confrontation"(Cf. ibid .: 200). An example of this is the addition of the metaphor refugee as a force of nature to that of the refugee as a welcome guest, which is described in more detail below. (6) Debatin's final deconstruction strategy is the Historicization of the given metaphor, which is traced back to a certain historical-cultural horizon of meaning and thus limited in its scope.

The present article is based on the existing corpus texts (cf. 5.1) and the strategies for disempowering the negatively connoted refugee metaphors are compiled. The discursive means observed partly coincide with the operations of metaphor reflection described by Debatin, but they can also supplement them with further ones. This is shown below in tabular form, before the following chapters return to the right-hand column in detail:

Debatin (2011: 198ff.)

Present contribution

(1) Revival of the metaphor

The paraphrase in the service of metaphor criticism (3.1.2)

(2) Metaphorical expansion

(3) Transformation of the metaphor

(4) Exhaustion of the metaphor

(5) metaphor confrontation

Diversity of image donors (3.1.1)

(6) Historizing the metaphor

(7) variety of image receivers; Example: metaphor parody (3.1.3)

(8) Global versus national discourses (3.1.4)

(9) Image versus speech image (3.2)

First, however, the selection mechanisms of the metaphor should be discussed again, which make it so valuable for manipulation and propaganda. It will be shown that all strategies for criticizing metaphors include aim to counteract the selective work of metaphors.

3.1 Diversity versus selection

“As the saying goes, nothing works as well as a camera when it comes to turning a mountain into a molehill,” writes Goodman (1968/1973: 27) in his well-known monograph Languages ​​of artwhen he sets out to define all seeing as selective, because seeing always takes place from a certain perspective. With a picture, and here a photograph is more precisely meant, a perspective can be created firmly- and someone else in fronthold. But this selective character is seldom questioned, because a photo fixes what is apparently objectively given and truthful (cf. Barthes 1964/1993: 1424) and therefore does a great job of convincing. This also happens in a similar way with linguistic images.

Thinking in language images, characterized by cognitive metaphor theory as unavoidable (see theses 3 and 4 in Chapter 1), sets the user on a certain perspective on an object or factual situation to be grasped. As a recipient of metaphors, one must be aware of this fact: A linguistic input, in this case the metaphor expressed in a political context, reduces our ability to perceive, process, interpret and act (see Lakoff / Wehling 2007 /42016: 13-31; Wehling 2016: 20-80). This mechanism, which reduces the complexity of what is to be grasped, is one of the most important features of the metaphor and it contributes to the fact that we can develop and acquire the abstract or even the unknown in an economic form. But how exactly can the ability of metaphors to “create knowledge” (cf. Jäkel 2003) be reconciled with their necessarily always selective effect, when a phenomenon is only ever fully understood if it is in its entirety and was not only partially described? Is true knowledge even possible through necessarily selective metaphors?

In order to attempt an answer to the question of the metaphor's relation to reality, a small digression on the epistemic function of language in general can be made. Taken in and of itself, the individual language as a tool for knowledge is nothing other than the result of a selection. To illustrate this fact, a comparison can be made that was made by Louis Hjelmslev in the mid-seventies: To summarize very simply, the Danish structuralist describes a conceptual state that is referred to via signs as initially language-independent, invisible "sense of content" (Hjelmslev 1974: 55) or as “an unanalysed amorphous continuum” (ibid .: 56). This sense of content is hidden and is only visible through the individual language characters that are used to describe it, the so-called "content form" (ibid .: 56). It makes the "amorphous' mass of thought" "tangible in this particular form as a" substance of content ". The comparison that Hjelmslev brings is as follows: The form is projected onto the thought or the zone of meaning “like a stretched net casts its shadow onto an undivided surface” (ibid .: 60). The continuous surface of the invisible three-dimensional object is made partially visible by the projection of the shadow onto it.

Fig. 2: Own representation of the development function of the language according to Hjelmslev

Applied to the subject of interest here, this means: Even the use of certain metaphors (as signs or content form) behaves like a network that casts its shadow over the facts to be explained (sense of content). However, only that part of the sense of content that is captured by the shadow of the web (i.e. the substance of the content) is visible. The intuitional spaces that were not captured by the projection are still hidden. This is precisely where the selective function of the metaphor is based: not everything is made visible in a matter of fact, but only those constituents that are captured by its own structure. And so the recipient of the metaphorical speech can only recognize the specified fact as the metaphor presents it.

As cognitive research has shown, the metaphors used in a discourse determine what we think about the matter they describe - and what we don't (see thesis 5). Lakoff / Wehling (2007 /42016: 28) bring the succinct formula into play for this fact: "Metaphors hide and highlight". Analogous to this are metaphors for Black (1962: 34) “half concealing, half revealing”. This can have several effects for the recipient of the metaphor: If what is to be understood is an unknown quantity, a metaphor, however selective it may be, can be a useful aid for initial conceptualization. The metaphor is thus a highly effective learning tool, because by analogy with an already known image donor area, the image receiving area is gradually opened up. A recipient, however - taking up Hjelmslev's metaphor - gains full knowledge of this object or state of affairs if he tries to make the accessible network ever closer in order to depict the amorphous continuum in ever greater detail. At this point, however, it must be pointed out that Hjelmslev's metaphorical comparison also has its limits, because an increasingly dense network ultimately casts an increasingly dense shadow that makes it difficult to see the object. So one can use another, similar metaphor to describe the abstract phenomenon of metaphor working. As such an illustration, the idea of ​​a wireframe model can help. A wireframe model is a v. a. Instrument used in engineering to represent three-dimensional objects, which depicts their edges and surface changes using a network. The closer this network is, the more authentically the wire frame model depicts the object to which it refers.

A metaphor works like such a wireframe model. Although it is selectively simplifying, it is able to depict an object or fact, i.e. H. to make it tangible. From the general cognitive science observation that we can only think in metaphors, and the simultaneous ambition of a reflected person to question the selective effect of metaphors, the question now arises as to how one can expand one's range of knowledge in relation to a fact . A responsible individual and such a society, who really wants to penetrate a situation, is not satisfied with just one perspective on the same. He consults various ways of speaking about the facts of interest to him, which project a different network than the already known network onto the circumstance to be understood, and then another one, etc. Only through the superimposition of several - metaphorical and non-metaphorical - does it become experiencing object is projected more and more closely meshed, only in this way the gaps between the unrecognized become smaller and smaller. The To-, Yes, WithPerforming multiple and different metaphorical and non-metaphorical speeches on the same object counteract the selective mechanism of a single conceptual metaphor. In the following sub-chapters, therefore, some strategies will be presented which have the purpose of providing additional perspectives to an established metaphorical way of speaking.

3.1.1 Diversity of picture donors

One possibility of making the heuristic network that is used to explain the current refugee immigration more and more closely meshed is the superposition or plurality of different and certainly also competing conceptual metaphors. In the previous section, for example, we were already able to experiment: After a first approximation, we were able to refine our understanding of how the metaphor works by comparing Hjelmslev (shadow projection) by using another metaphor (wire frame model). The selection mechanisms of a metaphor are revealed by the fact that additional and differently structured metaphors complement or even challenge them. For the scientific metaphor analysis, an onomasiological approach must come into play here, which would “start from the matter of the target area and examine all metaphors” (cf. Jäkel 2003: 128; cf. also ibid .: 132) that would describe the one image recipient , in this case the immigration of fugitive people. The recipient, who is confronted with different metaphors for this one state of affairs, tries to reconcile the incompatible or contradicting statements during his interpretation and thus arrives at new knowledge. The plurality of metaphors means for the recipient an increase in the scope for perception, interpretation and ultimately also for action.

Seen up close, the conceptual metaphor of the refugee as a natural disaster belongs to a one-sided description. Stefanowitsch gets to the point when he writes in his blog: “The flood metaphor cannot be used to say anything positive about refugees and how they are dealt with” (Stefanowitsch January 19, 2016). [7] These and similar metaphors simply do not allow positive associations with refugees, instead bring prejudices to light and ultimately stand in the way of building any empathy. Initiatives by (including prominent) individuals and groups on the Internet who have been strengthening a new conceptual metaphor under the successful motto "refugees welcome" since 2013, namely that of the refugee as a guest, are opposed to this selective use of language. The brisk active Facebook groups @RefugeesWelcome, @fluechtlingewillkommen and @refugeeswelcomeitalia have around 36,750, 58,540 and 18,640 members on August 20, 2017. The cover picture of the latter group names the programmatic goal in the form of a clear adhortative: "Creiamo insieme una nuova cultura dell’accoglienza". The image of hospitality (“accoglienza”), which is also used in Germany (cf. e.g. Matuschek 09/01/2015; Löbbert 09/13/2015), France (cf. Agier 10/14/2016) and recently again from Pope Francis (cf. . Vatican Insider News 14.08.2017), reveals new perspectives on the importation of migrants in a radical differentiation from the metaphors mentioned above. The reification of immigrants into a natural disaster is lifted. Fatalism in the face of a higher force of nature gives way to a basic pattern of interpersonal behavior: the refugees are now equals, if not welcome friends, who are brought into the house to celebrate and socialize with them. The receiving society no longer occupies the role of the victim, but its members become self-determined "hostel parents" (Löbbert 09/13/2015). [9] And although the conceptual metaphor of hospitality allows the logical conclusion that refugees are only tolerated for a while, and that this in turn could be instrumentalized by right-wing populists (cf. Stefanowitsch January 19, 2016), this linguistic image determined, for example, the actions of those people who stood at Munich train station in September 2015 to warmly welcome the arriving refugees (see SZ.de 09/05/2015).

Another metaphor with a primarily positive connotation would be that of the refugee as an asset, as the former CEO of the Federal Employment Agency, Frank-Jürgen Weise, took up in October 2015 (cf. Welt N24 October 30, 2015). It can also be found in the current immigration discourse, but we cannot go into it here for reasons of space. Let me just say that this metaphor would also be easy to deconstruct if one z. B. Enrichment interpreted as exploitation.

The refugee as a natural disaster - the fugitive as a guest. The last-mentioned linguistic image does not replace the first, but joins it - especially after the numerous calls by prominent Germans spread via the media (cf. Welt 08/27/2015; Focus online 12/30/2015), who thus served as a model for many. The earlier and traditional metaphors are not a priori wrong, but contain that serious reference to a possibly irrational, but nevertheless clearly perceptible and real fear of the foreign. A new image donation area offers recipients a conceptual alternative; and that means, to use cognitive metaphor theory, that other thought and action schemes are made available. By superimposing these two competing heuristic networks or by means of the “metaphor confrontation” (Debatin 2011: 200), society can increase its knowledge of an issue.Because two different metaphors make different selections, depict different variables with different relationships to one another, viewed together they can give a more authentic picture of the facts to be represented than they can do this separately. The connection between two different metaphorical projections means a more differentiated view of the respective situation for the recipient, and this ultimately opens up a broader spectrum of action for him.

3.1.2 The paraphrase in the service of metaphor criticism

The variety of perspectives, which has already been described as heuristically valuable, can not only be achieved by using different metaphors for the same image recipient, but also by other means, such as metaphor paraphrase that strives for literal accuracy. The metaphor as a means of knowledge does not therefore have to remain without an alternative. In the context of the critique of metaphors, the literal paraphrase aims to make the metaphors, which may circulate unnoticed, become conscious as such. This also includes Debatin's first "operation" on metaphor reflection; H. the (re) metaphorization of faded metaphors and other lexemes that together outline a uniform image donor area (cf. Debatin 2011: 198f.). Remetaphorisation can be achieved in different ways, for example by means of graphic aids such as quotation marks (“understand”), a hyphen (be-grasp), italics (“beto grab') (cf.Jäkel 2003: 51f.) as well as by resolving a metaphor in the form of a comparison, the comparison particle' like 'or' as 'is already a weakening of the equation intended by the metaphor (note the pragmatic difference between' Immigrantselectricity'And' Are immigrants like a stream‘).

When paraphrasing the metaphor, too, the aim is to reveal the selection that goes along with the image of the language. Generally this will be tertium comparationis between the image donor and the image recipient in order to make statements about the extent to which a metaphor for the description of a situation can be legitimized and whether what is to be understood is reproduced exhaustively or only fragmentarily by the metaphor used. For example, the refugee may be compared to a flood in that some citizens feel threatened by it. Perceived threat functions in such an argumentation context as tertium comparationis between literal and metaphorical speech. The flood metaphor also reifies the refugee at the same time. This reification can be criticized by those who have an interest in the metaphorical construction because it is an inadmissible one tertium comparationis (namely 'inanimateness') is introduced, which does not apply to both benchmarks. In recent years, articles on the Internet have increasingly pointed to the asymmetry in such constructed and possibly tacitly accepted equations. The linguistic and metaphor researcher Wehling (03/18/2016), cited several times here, z. B. logs on to the website of Mirror online even to speak with a guest post. An article on evangelisch.de also refers to the one-sided negative portrayal of refugees through metaphors of nature (cf. Klein 11/13/2015).

The literal paraphrase and explanation of a metaphor is supported by facts. Wehling rightly notes that in political discourse it is very often the activation of (metaphorical) frames and not the presentation of facts that is decisive (cf. Wehling 2016: 17, 42, 45). But it is precisely the citizens who are involved in political decision-making also arrives, this fact must be brought closer. A responsible citizen can only make responsible decisions on the basis of credible facts, not subtly conveyed metaphors. For these reasons, for example, the non-profit association Pro asylum the brochure is now in its third edition Pro human rights. Contra prejudice (32017), in which he compiled “arguments and facts for a factual discussion” (Pro Menschenrechte 2017: 3) around the immigration of refugees. In the last section, the brochure gives readers tips on how to follow them "against ignorance, prejudice and racism" (ibid .: 34). One of the suggestions is:

Pay attention to the power of words. When politicians call the number of asylum applications “alarming” or the media speak of “waves of refugees”, this triggers fears. From a factual point of view, many terms are inappropriate, even wrong. Make the media and those around you aware of this (Pro Menschenrechte 2017: 34).

As a substitute for the metaphors mentioned, more neutral terms such as “refugee” and “migration movement” are recommended (cf. Klein 11/13/2015). Scheuermann (January 23, 2016) advocates, among other things. the concept of "immigration".

The literal paraphrase and explanation of a metaphor may also have the aim of undoing the generalization or stereotyping that is often carried out with the metaphor. The textual metaphor of the “refugee flood”, for example, can be understood as a condensation of the statement “All refugees are a flood”. In the syllogistic scheme mentioned above, it represents the premise 2 or the subordinate premise and in the argumentation model the assertion or the argument. What is sometimes excluded when analyzing such a metaphor is that this premise has two links and the two opposing tendencies are concrete and Abstraction united in itself: “All refugees” is the subject, “are a flood” is the predicate. The cognitive theory is based on the rule that the metaphor is concretized, that is, mostly an abstract explanandum through an everyday, more concrete one Explanans is made tangible (see Lakoff / Johnson 1980/2011: 128). In this context, Jäkel (2003: 28f., 41) speaks of the normal case of the unidirectionality thesis. As already mentioned, the predication is associated with a concretization or feedback to an experience assumed to be known by the recipient. In fact, with the metaphor of the flood of refugees (or similar), immigration is made tangible as an abstract concept based not only on a fundamentally more concrete phenomenon, but also one that has been talked about in recent years on a national and global level : The images of the flood disasters in Germany (2002 and 2010) and the devastating tsunamis in the Indian (2004) and Pacific Ocean (2011) and their consequences should still be remembered by many citizens. The speech of the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his Interior Minister Roberto Maroni of the "tsunami umano", which made waves in the media, was dated less than three weeks after the last-mentioned natural event [10] and was in a euphemistic sense 'best placed' by its creators to avoid fears To the refugee debate in Italy (and beyond).

At the same time, however, the subject of the premise (“all refugees”) experiences a stereotyping that always means an abstraction from the individual case towards an assumed equal behavior of entire collectives. As Eco (2011/2016) explains using a number of examples, such stereotyping is one of the most important components in the fabrication of the enemy. The metaphor of the immigrants as a mass of water also fulfills this purpose in an effective way (cf. Hönigsperger 1991: 238) and activates it in a highly tendentious manner Frames (cf. Saiz de Lobado / Bonomi 2015: 130), which do not provide any space for interpersonal empathy. Wehling writes: "Masses of water hardly leave any room for individuality: When a wave, a flood or even a tsunami occurs, nobody thinks first of an astronomically high number of tiny water molecules" (Wehling 2016: 175). With the flood, wave and avalanche metaphors, your sender has the possibility of in many cases inadmissible generalizations under the guise of concrete and everyday language.

The paraphrasing metaphor criticism also wants to point out this effect of stereotyping, which is intended with the use of metaphors. The aim here is to become aware of and undo the generalization made with the metaphor. The attention of a conscious journalism should therefore be drawn away from the collective of the immigrants and directed to the individual, and that means the human side of the migration movement, to the stories and individual fates. This strategy can therefore also be used as a humanization and - since the metaphor of the wave of refugees asserted a reification of those affected - rehumanization tendency should be considered. The Italian journalist Gad Lerner z. B. notes in his political blog that immigration, which was instrumentalized by the Italian government at the time and characterized as threatening by the tsunami metaphor, has a dramatic human downside (“certamente drammatica per i suoi risvolti umani”; Lerner 04/01/2011). And Scheuermann also formulates: "The catastrophe metaphors also hide who the flight is actually a catastrophe for: for the refugees" (Scheuermann January 23, 2016). Similarly, the above-mentioned brochure with the main title “Pro human rights, against prejudice” also has formulations that are fleeting People move into the foreground and not his supposed belonging to an unmanageably large and perceived as threatening collective - by the way, this happens in complete accordance with the motto of the issuing institution Pro asylum: "The individual case counts" (ProAsyl).

3.1.3 Diversity of image recipients

Criticism of a circulating metaphor can be expressed not only through the use of another metaphor (cf. 3.1.1), but also through the (partial) resumption of the same linguistic image. The difference to the above-discussed deconstruction of metaphors on the basis of the facts or the literal paraphrasing of the same is that in this case the criticism discursively engages in the metaphor coined by the other side, plays with it in order to hollow it out from within.

Lakoff / Wehling (2007 /42016: 76ff.) And Wehling (2016: 52, 55ff.), But by resuming the criticized metaphor, even through the mere negation, the view of the world of the other side would be entered again and this would only be in the minds of the recipient confirmed and neuronally strengthened. By recapitulating the opposing discourse one would fail to bring one's own ideology, shaped by one's own metaphorical network, to the public (cf. Wehling 2016: 56, 64). This may be valuable advice for policy and reporting; a reflective metaphor theory and criticism cannot avoid naming its object to be criticized. It is precisely the negation of the metaphor originally sought, e.g. B. "the boat is [even] Not full ”(quoted from Hönigsperger 1991: 231, addition and emphasis: MA), can turn out to be an effective critical instrument, since it deprives the opposing side of the basis of their argumentation, the action-legitimizing“ bundle of conclusive rules ”(Pielenz 1993: 108) . For a recipient, it is also important, in the context of a feedback, to inform the sender of a linguistic image that he sees as inappropriate: “I do not get involved in the metaphor, I do not accept the argumentative implications of your metaphors.” From such examples to the mere negation of one However, metaphor will not be used in the following. Instead, a further possibility of metaphor criticism, the metaphor parody, will be discussed.

The case in which a metaphor that is to be disempowered is taken up again in one's own discourse, only to be used this time in an opposing chain of arguments, can turn out to be particularly witty. An example of this can be found in an editorial in Floodlights, the magazine of the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Scheuermann's contribution from January 23, 2016 is entitled:

Don't do it like that wave
Yes, there are a lot of refugees. But what about avalanches or
Waves [to] [sic!] Do? Fabian Scheuermann about the Flood of catastrophe metaphors in the current debate.

(Scheuermann January 23, 2016)

The author of the article takes action both with the casual main title “Don't make such a wave”, which despite the singular used in phraseologism seems to be addressed to all broadcasters and proponents of catastrophe metaphors, and with the designation of the observed metaphor use as flood back to the most prominent image donor area in the refugee debate. In this way he outwits the mechanisms of 'metaphor understanding' [11] in a certain way and at the same time supports his own argumentation. To explain this assertion, one can recall Pielenz's observation regarding the effect of metaphors on the recipient: “By adopting a metaphor, one accepts the bundle of inference rules associated with it” (Pielenz 1993: 108). The citizen who has consciously or unconsciously accepted the metaphors of the wave or flood of refugees assumes the correctness of the final rule “waves or floods are dangerous”. By referring to the use of the metaphors of the refugee as a force of nature as a wave and a flood, Scheuermann confirms the same rule of conclusion, indeed makes use of it to arrive at an analogous, yet deviating conclusion. This could be represented as follows:

Fig. 3: Argumentation model according to Öhlschläger (1979: 99) and metaphor parody

Scheuermann uses the willingness of citizens to accept the final rule “floods are dangerous” in order to base their own criticism of metaphors on it. When the recipient accepts the metaphor “Immigrants are a flood” and the syllogism “A flood is bad; ergo are immigrants bad ”is added, so the same recipient can be encouraged to at least critically deal with the language image. Metaphors about the immigrant discourse are a flood that shares the same argumentative basis with the first-mentioned metaphor. In view of the plurality of conclusions (with the same final rule) the recipient is asked to somehow resolve the contradiction between them. With his choice of title, the metaphor critic is riding confidently on the wave made by his opponents.

A similar case can be seen in a statement by the managing director of Pro asylum, Günter Burkhardt, who comments on Wolfgang Schäuble's comparison of refugee immigration with an avalanche with a linguistic image: Metaphors, as used by the incumbent finance minister, are "grist to the mill of right-wing populists" (n-tv.de 12.11.2015). This statement also makes use of the well-known metaphor of water to warn of the impact this metaphor-riddled talk about refugees can have on society as a whole, namely the strengthening and mobilization of right-wing populist sections of the population.

3.2 Global versus national discourses

Every culture defines itself among other things. via their own metaphor network (cf. Pielenz 1993: 174). Which metaphors are used to explain certain life-world facts depends on culture-specific rules (see above, thesis 6). The image of refugees as a threatening force of nature seems, as has now been suggested several times, to have a certain universality in Europe. There are, however, creative textual metaphors that arouse the public's attention because, although they can be inserted into this conceptual metaphor, their clarity suddenly reveals the previously reserved and almost unnoticed structuring of the image donor. This is the case with Berlusconi's talk of the “tsunami umano” and Schäuble's comparison of the refugees with an avalanche. These metaphors did not go unnoticed in the national, but above all also in the international context, and gave rise to supranational criticism here and there. Such creative metaphors initiated heteronational discourses on talking about refugees, which in turn can be seen as a form of metaphor criticism.

Schäuble's metaphor of the refugee avalanche, for example, which has now been cited several times, has been heavily criticized in the German media and by fellow politicians (see n-tv.de and Zeit 12.11.2015). The comparison was also reported and criticized in Italy (see euronews November 12, 2015) and France (see lepoint November 25, 2015). Although this metaphor construction is a special form of metaphor paraphrase, this 'view from the outside' has its own effects on the two linguistic communities involved: On the one hand, an international metaphor criticism increases the pressure to legitimize the source cultural metaphor transmitter. In short: Schäuble has to stand up for his comparison on the international stage. This suggests the following quote from an article on www.lepoint.fr:

Avalanche ... Le mot a été lâché. Non pas par les manifestants hargneux qui ont recommencé à défiler dans les rues de Dresde chaque lundi soir sous la bannière de Pegida, mais par Wolfgang Schäuble, le très influent ministre des Finances d’Angela Merkel (lepoint 25.11.2015).

According to the author of this online article, what makes the metaphor worthy of sanctions is the fact that the author of the same is not just any Pegida supporter, but Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble as an incumbent member of the Merkel cabinet. His statement was therefore also seen as an affront to the German Chancellor and her policy of welcoming (cf. ibid.). On the other hand, heteronational reporting is given a preventive element, as the original cultural metaphor, which is found to be inadequate, is characterized as a negative example worthy of sanctions and therefore to be avoided in the target recipients.

3.3 Images versus speech images

The previous statements are intended to converge in the analysis of a tweet that is explicitly directed against the metaphor of the fleeting as a force of nature. Not an aphoristic text typical for Twitter and not a pure image, but a verbal and pictorial symbol that connects and thus connects polysemiotic Communication should be used here. The connection between word and image is even of central importance in the strategy presented below for criticizing established metaphors.

As indicated above, the metaphor or the linguistic image is close to the material image in several respects (cf. Stöckl 2004: 212) - not only in terms of the selective effect, but also, for example, in terms of cognitive processing. An image can be processed more quickly and thus possibly even thoughtlessly than an abstract-literal description of a situation (cf. Hörmann 1978: 462). In this regard, Stöckl (2004: 224) notes that pictorial language is received and processed as a holistic form. This also obscures the manipulative effect of the metaphor. The recipient of a catchy textual metaphor unconsciously accepts an entire image (the conceptual metaphor behind it) and often does not question it because it is intuitively grasped as a whole and considered plausible. From a cognitive point of view, a verbatim presentation of abstract facts and circumstances is more complex to process and more susceptible to critical questioning (cf. Hörmann 1978: 462). Nevertheless, the material image is also suitable as a strategy for commenting on or criticizing a metaphorical statement (and vice versa). This is to be shown in the following tweet from Erik Marquardt, member of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party council, which was published on November 12, 2015 in response to Schäuble's avalanche metaphor with the hashtag #Lawine.

Fig. 4: Marquardt November 12, 2015

For Marquardt, the common metaphors of the “wave of refugees” etc. are now an established misconception (“Because it is often confused [...]”). In view of the assumed manipulative use of such metaphors, the metaphor critic is forced to uncover the naturalized 'improper' metaphorical speech using a form of presentation that is otherwise known from children's primers and picture dictionaries, namely the naming of a lemma together with an obvious graphic representation. [13] The aim of this tweet is clear and can be described with the help of semiotic terminology as follows: The coupling of the lexemes from the fields of nature and natural disaster (as significant) with the ubiquitous images of fleeting crowds in visual media (as signifié) is said to be broken up again by Marquardts' declaration, which has been shared 821 times and 892 times marked with 'Like'.

Marquardt, who incidentally is a photographer himself, uses images with little connotation for the lemmas “wave”, “flood” and “avalanche”. With Barthes one could speak of “images denotées” (Barthes 1964/1993: 1420). This text-image relationship (lemma - low-connotation image) is characteristic of the pragmatic function of the tweet, with which its author wants to remove the metaphorical link between the force of nature and fleeting people and to understand the natural phenomena again 'literally' through the visual feedback. The fourth image in the series must rather arouse the interest of the recipient, because beyond the denotation there can also be occasion for a number of connotative associations, so it can be classified as an "image connotée" (ibid.). The link between text and image in the fourth quadrant breaks with that of the first three. Only if the recipient follows Marquardt's hint “Since it is often confused [...]” and interprets the tweet as a contribution to the current refugee debate, he can - continuing the scheme of the series - infer the actually appropriate lemma for the picture, namely “Refugee “, Because in the background you can see a packed crowd standing in a row and monitored by (border) police officers. Images like this have been circulating in the European media for a long time. Marquardt deliberately does not use the lexeme "refugee" or "immigrant", but rather a hyperonym: "people". The striking return to the literal meaning of the metaphorized and widely used lexemes “wave”, “flood” and “avalanche”, which was carried out with the first three quadrants, is thus abandoned in the fourth quadrant. Here a designation is combined with the image of the immigrants, which deliberately abstracts from their quality as foreigners and their function as immigrants. This is already captured in the picture, as the focus is on a little boy who, although belonging to the group of refugees, pursues the basic needs of all children in this world: laughing and eating. The deconstruction of the common language images culminates in a demonstrative call to empathy with the immigrants, who share the common basis of being human with the recipients of this communication.

One could also accuse Marquardt of a manipulative use of language and images, because, as Barthes (1964/1993: 1427f.) Has observed, images that are rich in connotations are primarily used in contexts of ideological communication. If the originator of the tweet had an objective transfer of knowledge as his goal, there would be no reason for a text-image link in the fourth quadrant, which on the one hand 'compels' the recipient to elaborate inferences ("people" instead of actually "refugees") and on the other hand deliberately arouses empathy Target group (namely the child as the epitome of a harmless individual) takes center stage. Of course, Marquardt's tweet is also part of an ideology, but one that appeals to humanitarian ideals and leads back to the human right to be perceived and valued as an individual.

As you may have heard, the described tweet combines various of the already mentioned strategies for metaphor criticism: It exposes the metaphorical character of common (possibly unreflected) expressions in the discourse about the influx of immigrants by listing the various image donors (wave, flood, Avalanche). By speaking of “people”, he cancels the reification to force of nature brought about by the criticized metaphors. The plural of this lexeme brings to the fore that it is not a single and threatening mass, but a multitude of different individuals. Incidentally, the colorful stick figures in the above-mentioned also have a similar function. from the club Pro asylum published brochure (see Pro Menschenrechte 2017: title page, 7), which simultaneously emphasizes diversity, individuality and - through the always the same shape of stick figures (but not women) - the common basis of being human.

Some of the commentators of Marquardt's tweet seem to misunderstand the deliberately deconstructing strategy behind his criticism of metaphors when they expressly point out that “waves of refugees” etc. are not serious metaphors, even just “a cursed formulation” (commentator from one similar tweet from Heiko Maas; see Maas November 12, 2015) and that these are completely acceptable. In the comments on Marquardt's tweet you can read: "Linguistic images only serve to enliven what has been said, are never to be understood literally." This would prove that, on the one hand, we are talking about the metaphor as Ornatus not only represents a scientific topos, but is also used in lay discourse to appease the power of metaphors, and on the other hand, popular scientific statements such as that of Lakoff / Wehling (2007 /42016) and Wehling (2016), which make the findings of cognitive metaphor research accessible to the broad masses, are still necessary so that the power of the metaphor is not underestimated in terms of society as a whole.

At the end of the discussion, it is possible to return to the six theses that are discussed in Chap. 1 were formulated based on the cognitive metaphor theory. (Metaphorical) concepts or frames structure human cognition and also condition the perception and action of every human being (thesis 1–4). Insofar as certain frames are preferred in a society (thesis 6), thoughts and actions of people are partly predictable and thus also manipulable. Politics has always made use of this fact (see Lakoff / Wehling 2007 /42016; Wehling 2016) and pays attention to communication that should activate the desired frames (thesis 5). This can be observed in particular in the use of metaphors by certain political actors who always want to propagate a uniform worldview, an ideology, with their statements. Ideological speech in general and the use of metaphors in particular converge in the characteristic of the selection and channeling of the possible diversity of perspectives with regard to a certain intentional purpose. It is precisely for this reason that the use of language images and - as Goodman suggests in the above quote - also of material images is an effective means of propaganda. One can counteract this ideological reduction through a conscious countermovement, which Bakhtin (1934f ./1979: 165) describes as a centrifugal force away from the ideological towards the diversity and dialogue of polyphonic voices. A person or society who is eager to learn and who is eager to learn promotes such a variety of perspectives, because only such a cognitive network, with the help of which one understands and explains the world, becomes ever more tightly meshed.

In place of the controlled perspectives, the opening of a variety of perspectives should take place. The question of the construction and deconstruction of metaphors in a society is therefore very closely related to the question of how it deals with ideological heterogeneity. It is not just about having a worldview and defending it, as implied by Wehling (2016: 52, 55ff.), But also about accepting other worldviews and developing one's own on the basis of solid facts and the like . U. to question. Recipients of ideologically (and that means in many cases: metaphorical) texts have to take a position on the recipient and possibly check established thought patterns. The questioning of the metaphors "in which we live" (Lakoff / Johnson 1980) and with which we argue every day (Pielenz 1993) is part of a responsible individual and such a society - especially if this conscious turning away from entrenched thinking, Patterns of perception and action sometimes represent an elaborate, “extremely laborious and painful undertaking” (Pielenz 1993: 156) and, moreover, make the establishment of social identity - which can no longer only be achieved through the fabrication of the enemy - possibly considerably more difficult.

bg - blog (of an individual); fb - Facebook page; oj - online journalism (institutional); op - online publication; tw - tweet; yt - Youtube video.

@ refugees welcome - fb.,
https://www.facebook.com/fluechtlingewillkommen/ (August 29, 2017).

@RefugeesWelcome - fb.,
https://www.facebook.com/RefugeesWellcome/ (August 29, 2017).

@refugeeswelcomeitalia - fb.,
https://www.facebook.com/refugeeswelcomeitalia/ (August 29, 2017).

20minutes 06/18/2015 - oj. “Migrants: Sarkozy compare l'afflux de réfugiés à une gross fuite d'eau”, http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1635055-20150618-migrants-sarkozy-compare-afflux-refugies-grosse-fuite-eau (08/29/2017).

Agier 10/14/2016 - yt. Agier, Michel (October 14, 2016): "L’hospitalité aujourd’hui". Lecture as part of the colloquium Migrations, réfugiés, exile, October 12-14, 2016, Collège de France, https://www.youtube.com/ watch? Time_continue = 41 & v = GlxOVztYMRQ (08/29/2017).

BAMF 2013 - op.BAMF (ed.) (2013): Welcome and recognition culture. Recommendations for action and practical examples. Final report round table "host society", https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/ DE / Publications / Brochures / abschlussbericht-runder-tisch-Aufnahmegesellschaft.pdf; jsessionid = 0D2CA51A55286F07FC495B82BE1ADBC0.1_cid368? __ blob = publicationFile (29.08.2017).

Carta di Roma 17.08.2017 - oj. Associazione Carta di Roma (08/17/2017): "Migranti: metafore catastrofiche e linguaggioistituzionale", https: // www.cartadiroma.org/news/migranti-tra-metafore-catastrofiche-e-linguaggi ... (08/29/2017) .

euronews 11/12/2015 - oj. "'Rifugiati come una valanga', è polemica nel governo tedesco", http: //it.euronews.com/2015/11/12/rifugiati-come-una-valanga-e-polemica -... (29.08.2017 ).

faz.net 11/12/2015 - oj. "Schäuble warns of refugee avalanche", http: // www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/wolfgang-schaeuble-warnt-v ... (29.08.2017).

Focus online (12/30/2015) - oj. “This is how celebrities get involved with refugees”, http://www.focus.de/kultur/vermischtes/fluechtlinge-so-engagierten-sich -... (29.08.2017).

Klein 11/13/2015 - oj. Klein, Matthias (13.11.2015): "Linguist: Metaphors about refugees suggest a threat", https: // www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/128385/13-11-2015/sprachforscherin-metaphern -... (29.08. 2017).

lepoint 11/25/2015 - oj. "Réfugiés: Merkel sous haute pression", http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/refugies-merkel-sous-haute-pression-25-11-2015-1984605_24.php (29.08.2017).

Learner 04/01/2011 - bg. Lerner, Gad (April 1st, 2011): “Tsunami umano? No, truffa mediatica ", http://www.gadlerner.it/2011/04/01/tsunami-umano-no-truffa-mediatica (29.08.2017).

Löbbert 09/13/2015 - oj. Löbbert, Raoul (13.09.2015): "Wir Herbergseltern", http://www.zeit.de/2015/37/gastfreundschaft-fluechtlinge-naechstenliebe (29.08.2017).

Maas 11/12/2015 - partly Maas, Heiko (November 12, 2015): "#Lawine", https: // twitter.com/HeikoMaas/status/664754615754358784 (August 29, 2017).

Marquardt November 12th, 2015 - partly Marquardt, Erik (November 12, 2015): "#Lawine", https://twitter.com/erikmarquardt/status/664817599079911424?lang=de (August 29, 2017).

Matuschek 09/01/2015 - oj. Matuschek, Milosz (01.09.2015): “Why is our compassion failing? Refugees and asylum seekers are seen as a problem rather than an opportunity in Germany. This is due to our hospitality: We don't have any ”, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/ feuilleton / debatten / fluechtlingskrise-deutscher-los-die-gastfreundschaft-13778321.html (29.08.2017)

n-tv.de 11/12/2015 - oj. 'Inappropriate and degrading'. SPD attacks Schäuble after avalanche quotation ", http: //www.n-tv.de/politik/SPD-gracht-Schaeuble-nach-Lawinen-Zitat-an-ar ... (29.08.2017).

ProAsyl, https://www.proasyl.de/ (29.08.2017).

Pro human rights 2017PRO ASYL e. V./Amadeu Antonio Foundation / IG Metall Board of Directors / Charitable Respect! No space for Rassismus GmbH / ver.di federal board (32017): For human rights, against prejudice: facts and arguments on the debate about refugees in Germany and Europe, http://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/w/files/pdfs/ pro_menschenrechte_contra_vorurteile_2017.pdf (29.08.2017).

Scheuermann 01/23/2016 - oj. Scheuermann, Fabian (January 23, 2016): "Don't make a wave. Yes, there are a lot of refugees. But what does that have to do with avalanches or waves [to] [sic!]? Fabian Scheuermann on the flood of catastrophe metaphors in the current debate ”, http://www.fluter.de/mach-mal-nicht-so-ne-welle (29.08.2017).

Spiegel-Online 11/12/2015 - oj. “Applause for those arriving”, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wolfgang-schaeuble-lawinen-vergleich-empoert-die-spd-a-1062454.html (29.08.2017).

Stefanowitsch 01/19/2016 - bg. Stefanowitsch, Anatol (January 19, 2016): “Beyond the right of hospitality: language images and their limits”, http://www.sprachlog.de/ 2016/01/19 / jenseits-des-gastrechts / (August 29, 2017).

theguardian.com 08/10/2015 - oj. Shariatmadari, David (August 10, 2015): "Swarms, floods and marauders: the toxic metaphors of the migration debate", https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/10/migration-debate-metaphors-swarms -floods-marauders-migrants? CMP = share_btn_tw (08/29/2017).

Vatican Insider News 08/14/2017 - oj. La stampa - Vatican Insider News (14.08.2017): "Bergoglio: promuovere la cultura dell'accoglienza verso i migranti", http://www.lastampa.it/2017/08/14/vaticaninsider/ita/ news / bergoglio- promuovere-cultura-accoglienza-verso-i-migranti-J58vPX5SQfGSzaCHNtZitI / pagina.html (29.08.2017).

Wehling 03/18/2016 - oj. Wehling, Elisabeth (March 18, 2016): “The wrong language. Germany is advocating a refugee policy based on solidarity: The debate is determined by language images that do not allow empathy for refugees ", in: Mirror online, http://www.spiegel.de/ politik / deutschland / das-false-talk-ueber-fluechtlinge-gastbeitrag-a-1082396.html (29.08.2017).

World 08/27/2015 - oj. "How celebrities help refugees", https: // www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/boulevard_nt/article145707949 / ... (08/29/2017).

Welt N24 10/30/2015 - oj. "Refugees are enrichment", https: // www.welt.de/print/welt_kompakt/article148225011/Fluechtlinge-sind-Bereic ... (29.08.2017).

Zeit 12.11.2015: "Sharp criticism of Schäuble's avalanche comparison", http: // www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-11/wolfgang-schaeuble-fluechtlinge -... (29.08.2017).

5.2 secondary sources

Agnetta, Marco (2018 p.p.): Aesthetic polysemioticity and translation. Glucks Orfeo ed Euridice (1762) in Italian, German and French Kulturtransfer, Saarbrücken.

Bachtin, Michail M. (1934f./1979): "The word in the novel", in: Grübel, Rainer (ed.) (1979): Mikhail M. Bakhtin. The aesthetics of the word, from the Russian by Rainer Grübel and Sabine Reese, Frankfurt a. M., 154-300.

Barthes, Roland (1964/1993): "Rhétorique de l’image", in: Marty, Éric (ed.): Roland Barthes.Œuvres complètes, Vol. I: 1942–1965, Paris, 1417-1429.

Black, Max (1962): Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca / New York.

Bühler, Karl (1934/1982): Language theory. The representation function of the language, Jena.

Debatin, Bernhard (1995): The rationality of the metaphor. An examination of the philosophy of language and the theory of communication, Berlin / New York.

Debatin, Bernhard (2011): "The Rationality of Metaphorical Arguments", in: Junge, Matthias (ed.): Metaphors and society. The importance of orientation through metaphors, Wiesbaden, 185-203.

Eco, Umberto (2011/2016): "The Fabrication of the Enemy", in: ders .: The Fabrication of the Enemy and Other Occasional Papers, from the Italian by Burkhart Kroeber, Munich.

Goodman, Nelson (1968/1973): Languages ​​of art. An approach to a symbol theory, from the English by Jürgen Schlaeger, Frankfurt a. M.

Hjelmslev, Louis (1974): Prolegomena to a theory of language (= Linguistic series, Vol. 9), Munich.

Hönigsperger, Astrid (1991): "'The boat is full" - On the metaphor in politics ", in: Folia Linguistica XXV, 229-241.

Hörmann, Hans (1978): To mean and to understand. Basics of a psychological semantics (= Suhrkamp pocket books science