The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has caused an ecological disaster of unknown magnitude. In this respect, the institutions involved in this incident did not have a good standing in public. As the major party responsible for the accident, BP has been criticized heavily by the people and the government. The White House, although not directly responsible, is also held accountable for the disaster by many folks. These two organizations have had to engage in an uphill battle against the media and especially the public. Both have made attempts to ease the tensions and to confront the criticism put forward by the American people as well as the global community. BP and the White House have made use of speeches and remarks to establish a connection between them and the people. In these speeches, officials from BP and the President of the United States, respectively, have made it their goal to inform the public about the latest happenings concerning the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and their response efforts. Every event of such magnitude is an opportunity for certain parties involved to present themselves from their best side, and is therefore exploited accordingly. In this respect, the speeches serve as linguistic tools to communicate certain images that are intended to be conveyed by their speakers.
With this in mind, this paper will analyze the speeches published by BP and the Obama Administration, respectively. The ultimate goal is to find out what metaphors are used in the speeches and what images are conveyed through their use. It was suggested that both parties have specific agendas that could be uncovered by looking at the use of specific metaphors. What can these metaphors and their conveyed images tell the hearer about these agendas? Are there certain agendas that the respective parties want to push at all? All of these questions mark the essence of this paper. First, in order to understand the metaphor per se, several theories are presented, all with their individual approaches to metaphors. In this section, the Literature Review chapter, the questions of what a metaphor does, how it does it and its function are answered according to their respective interpretations. Second, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill will be looked at in more detail in the Background chapter. Third, the methodological setup will be explained. The results of the analysis and their discussion, and interpretation can be found in chapters 5 and 6, respectively.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Literature Review
2.1 Metaphors
2.2 Metaphor Theories
2.2.1 Aristotle & Traditional Theories
2.2.2 Interaction View of Metaphor
2.2.3 Lakoff’s & Johnson’s Approach to Metaphor
3 Background
4 Methodology
4.1 Sample
4.2 Data Collection & Analysis
5 Results & Discussion
5.1 OIL SPILL AS ENEMY
5.2 REMOVING OIL IS WAR
5.3 OIL SPILL AS DISEASE
5.4 OIL SPILL AS MISTAKE
5.5 THE WHITE HOUSE AS ENFORCER/THE WHITE HOUSE AS HELPER
5.6 BP AS RESPONSIBLE HELPER
6 Interpretation
6.1 Limitations of Study
7 Summary
Objectives & Key Themes
The primary aim of this paper is to analyze speeches and public remarks regarding the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill to identify the specific metaphors used by BP and the White House. The study explores how these metaphorical linguistic expressions are employed to construct specific images of the crisis, thereby uncovering the underlying political and corporate agendas of the involved institutions.
- Conceptual metaphor theory as a framework for analysis.
- Comparison of metaphorical usage between BP and the Obama Administration.
- Examination of personification and war-related imagery in disaster discourse.
- Analysis of self-portrayal and the shifting of responsibility.
- The role of rhetoric in shaping public perception and institutional reputation.
Auszug aus dem Buch
OIL SPILL AS ENEMY
An often used conceptual metaphor is the OIL SPILL AS ENEMY metaphor. It is one of the metaphors with the most linguistic metaphorical expressions counted in the set speeches. With 91 occurrences found in the texts, the OIL SPILL AS ENEMY metaphor is clearly one of the more substantial metaphors used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill discourse. This leads to the thought that these metaphors are used on purpose and in large quantities in order to force the conveyance of a certain picture of the oil spill. The OIL SPILL AS ENEMY metaphor is represented by many different linguistic expressions.
The OIL SPILL AS ENEMY metaphor is used as many times by the White House Administration as by BP. Apart from the listed occurrences, the conceptual metaphor has been represented by many other linguistic expressions, such as “damage caused by the spill” (USRPOSR), "Businesses have been decimated [by the oil spill]" (USRPMOC) and “wildlife that had been harmed [by the oil spill]” (BPGS). As can be seen from all these given examples, the OIL SPILL AS ENEMY metaphor has many different linguistic expressions that personify the OIL SPILL as an entity, giving it malicious traits. In this regard, the opposing side, be it BP or the White House Administration, has the task of dealing with this conveyed “enemy” and protecting the people from further harm caused by that enemy.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the context of the 2010 environmental catastrophe and establishes the research goal of analyzing metaphors used by BP and the White House.
2 Literature Review: This section presents foundational theories on metaphors, ranging from Aristotle and Max Black to the conceptual metaphor theory of Lakoff and Johnson.
3 Background: This chapter details the historical and socio-technical context of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting response efforts by BP and the US government.
4 Methodology: This section outlines the data collection process, specifying the criteria for selecting speeches and explaining the systematic manual analysis of metaphorical expressions.
5 Results & Discussion: This chapter categorizes and discusses specific conceptual metaphors found in the discourse, such as the oil spill as an enemy or a disease, and how they serve as linguistic tools for the respective parties.
6 Interpretation: This chapter synthesizes the findings to compare the political agendas of the White House and BP, highlighting how metaphors are utilized to protect or rebuild their public reputations.
7 Summary: The final chapter provides a concise review of the analysis, confirming the central hypothesis that metaphors are deliberately used to distort concepts and push institutional agendas.
Keywords
Metaphors, Deepwater Horizon, Oil Spill, BP, White House, Rhetoric, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Discourse Analysis, Political Agendas, Public Relations, George Lakoff, Personification, Environmental Crisis, Linguistic Expressions, Communication Strategy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper fundamentally investigates how metaphors are utilized as linguistic tools by BP and the Obama Administration to shape public perception of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The research explores the intersection of language, political discourse, and corporate communication, specifically focusing on how metaphorical concepts are mapped onto the oil spill to serve institutional goals.
What is the primary research question?
The study aims to determine which metaphors are used by the respective parties and how these metaphors portray the oil spill and the institutions involved to influence the public.
What methodology is applied in the study?
The author employs a qualitative approach based on Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory, involving the manual extraction and categorization of metaphorical linguistic expressions from official speeches.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines various conceptual metaphors—such as OIL SPILL AS ENEMY, REMOVING OIL IS WAR, and OIL SPILL AS DISEASE—discussing their frequency, target domains, and intended rhetorical effects.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Metaphors, Deepwater Horizon, Political Agendas, Rhetoric, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and Public Relations.
How does the usage of the "OIL SPILL AS ENEMY" metaphor benefit the involved institutions?
By personifying the oil spill as a malicious enemy, it creates a moral binary that forces the audience to look for a "good" savior, a vacuum which BP and the White House are eager to fill to improve their standing.
What is the difference between BP's and the White House's use of metaphors?
While both use war-like imagery, the White House uses metaphors to distance itself from the disaster and emphasize its role as an enforcer and helper, whereas BP uses them primarily to signal accountability and commitment to "make things right" to regain public trust.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Cristhian Welter (Autor:in), 2010, Metaphors We Drill By?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/163631
