Fracking and metaphor: Analysing newspaper discourse in the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

We apply a mixed-method design centred on the deployment of metaphors to explore the role that language plays in the structuring of the public discourses of unconventional hydrocarbon development (UHD) across three major developed economies. We analyse UHD-related metaphorical devices deployed in broadsheet newspapers in Australia, the UK and the USA between January 2006 and May 2018. We develop an innovative Type Hierarchy Approach to metaphors by mapping through directed graph hierarchies. These allow concept-mapping analysis in terms of supertypes and subtypes, i.e. concepts ordered in terms of generality and inclusion as in Òrapid expansionÓ-> ÒexplosionÓ. We find two broad discourses, each containing metaphorical constructions: economic gain across temporal horizons (incorporating boom, bonanza, revolution and death metaphors); and risk tolerance and decision-making (incorporating gamble and insanity metaphors). At the level of individual metaphors, deployment trends and patterns can be mapped along country borders rather than for example political alignment. Boom and bonanza appear most widespread in the USA, whereas UHD as a revolution is more closely associated with UK newspapers. Over time, UHD-related metaphor use decreases in all three countries, potentially reflecting an increasing public acceptance of UHD and moving shale gas from unconventional to conventional hydrocarbon development.

A Bridge to Where? Tracing the Bridge Fuel Metaphor in the Canadian Media Sphere

“…The gridlock in decarbonizing the global economy demands the search for creative solutions. To initiate this process, knowledge mobilization efforts need to not only raise public awareness of the politics underlying bridge fuel but also propose new metaphors for political mobilization, such as renewing the war metaphor in climate change action (Mangat and Dalby, 2018) and reframing shale gas as "roadblock" to decarbonization (Cotton et al, 2019).…”

“…The intense discursive struggles between pro-and anti-fracking metaphors manifest in the U.S. context as well. According to a comparative analysis by Cotton et al (2019), the term "fracking" carries both positive and negative connotations in American public opinions. While supporters associate this term with metaphors like "boom, " "bonanza, " and "revolution, " opponents use metaphors like "death, " "gamble, " and "insanity" to convey the unpredictability of fracking in relation to long-term environmental planning.…”

“…Depending on which frame has been adopted by a news report, the bridge fuel metaphor could be considered as belonging to either "revolution" or "gamble." Considering the dynamics between U.S. and Canadian public opinions, the discursive tension identified by Cotton et al (2019) warrants further research into bridge fuel discourses found in Canadian media.…”

The Role Of Functional Analysis In Teaching English To Students Majoring In Economics

“…Pragmatics and pragmalinguistics (H. P. Grice, G. Leach) introduced such concepts as the pragmatic level of language, pragmema, communicative intentions, illocution and perlocution. The social aspects of discourse are thoroughly studied in the works on discourse analysis (Colombo et al, 2020;Cotton et al, 2019;Johnson & McLean, 2020), on institutional and professional discourse (Izquierdo & Blanco, 2020;Ledeneva, 2017;Malyuga et al, 2019).…”

Humanizing hydrocarbon frontiers: the “lived experience” of shale gas fracking in the United Kingdom’s Fylde communities

“…So far, lively debate has occurred concerning shale gas development at the national (UK) policy level with research documenting prominent policy frames (Williams and Sovacool 2019;Kirk 2018a, 2018b;Cotton, Rattle, and Van Alstine 2017;Bomberg 2017), the tumultuous history of policy and regulation (Priestley 2018;Whitton et al 2017), and the framing and rhetorical devices used by media (Cotton et al 2019). Within these debates, shale gas, and natural gas more broadly, remains contested by diverse publics who question its ability to deliver carbon emissions reductions (McGlade et al 2018), enhanced energy security (Bradshaw 2018), jobs and community development (Szolucha 2019).…”