The gulf of mexico oil spill a corpus based study of metaphors in british and american media discourse 5

Table 5.1 – An aggregate internal comparison of significant metaphors in British Broadsheets G & TT Types/ Tokens TT Types/ Tokens THE OIL SPILL BP/ OIL INDUSTRY DEBTOR/CRIMINAL

CHAPTER 5 METAPHORS IN BRITISH MEDIA DISCOURSE:

THE GUARDIAN & THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

5.1 Introduction: Metaphorical Evaluation in British Media Discourse

British broadsheets such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Times are mainstream daily newspapers with a wide

circulation Just like in the American context, British broadsheets are seen as

“the fourth estate”, where the newspaper owners and advertisers are deigned to

be free from government interference However, it is important to note that news proprietors have the “power to influence the content, the political stance and the editorial perspective of the paper” through the appointment of senior editorial staff (Bednarek, 2006, p.13) Hence, the metaphorical evaluation carried out in this thesis essentially aims to uncover the aggregate political

stance and editorial perspective of The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph in

order to capture the effect that differing political affiliations assert on the use

of metaphor However, it must be clearly stated that the claims made in this thesis are limited to the findings of these specific corpora This is simply due

to the fact that it is virtually impossible to determine the stance of a newspaper from narrow sets of corpora on a limited range of issues Further research over

a range of significant socio-political issues need to be conducted in order to obtain the necessary statistical reliability to make these claims

According to Bednarek (2006, p.191), news comprises the following four parameters Firstly, news is essentially embedded speech with various sources of attribution in order to communicate authenticity Secondly,

newspapers “express a certain emotive stance on events they are reporting in order to attract readers” Thirdly, it is concerned with the unexpected and with what contrasts with the norm in order to cater to market forces and the profit motive Fourthly, news stories use “evaluations of reliability in order to make predictions as well as to mitigate assertions” Taken in tandem, these four parameters point unequivocally towards the significant influence wielded by the editorial perspective in the portrayal of the actors in the news event This is where the differences in metaphorical evaluations can reveal the subtle influences that political affiliation and cultural perspectives have on the target discourse

For the metaphorical analysis of the Guardian, a corpus of 188,788 words comprising 250 articles is used The corresponding analysis in the Daily Telegraph was carried out using a corpus of 156, 459 words, also comprising

250 articles The range of top-10 statistically salient semantic domains with respect to the in-built BNC-Informative Writing sampler within WMatrix is captured in Figures 5.1-5.2 respectively

Fig 5.1 - USAS Semantic Tagset (A snapshot of the Top-10 semantic domains for the

G-Corpus)

Fig 5.2 - USAS Semantic Tagset (A snapshot of the Top-10 semantic domains for the

TT-Corpus)

In order to ensure consistency and statistical validity in this comparative analysis, the semantic domains and lexical items selected for this analysis of British broadsheet discourse will be the same as those analysed in the American broadsheet discourse from Chapter 4 As is the convention for this thesis, the corpus and the accompanying rank within the semantic domain are captured in the accompanying brackets after the semantic domains The empirically suggested USAS semantic domains and lexical items selected for analysis are given below:

1 Substances & Materials: Liquid (G_1/TT_1)

2 Speech: Communicative (G_6/TT_8)

3 Damaging and Destroying (G_7/TT_6)

4 Green Issues (G_5/TT_10)

5.2 The British Perspective: An analysis of the interaction of metaphor

categories in the G-Corpus and the TT-Corpus

Table 5.1 provides an aggregate view of the BP oil spill metaphorically embodied by the G-corpus and the TT-corpus All the conceptual metaphors

were identified and formulated using the IICM The categories of

“WAR/CRIME/THREAT”, “BP/ OIL INDUSTRY” (Sympathetic/ Non-Sympathetic Portrayals), “US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION” (Sympathetic/ Non-Sympathetic Portrayals) form the basis for an aggregate view of the dominant metaphor strands as well as the metaphorical evaluation of the key figures in the BP Oil Spill

Table 5.1 – An aggregate internal comparison of significant metaphors in British Broadsheets

(G & TT)

(Types/ Tokens)

TT ( Types/ Tokens )

THE OIL SPILL

BP/ OIL INDUSTRY

DEBTOR/CRIMINAL / ENEMY/INCOMPETENCE/ PRAGMATIC

OPPORTUNIST/RECKLESS/ OUTDATED/ GREEDY/

(PERSONIFICATION: NEGATIVE)

14.1% 21.4% 18.8% 22.6%

BP/ OIL INDUSTRY

FIGHTER/ CONTRITE CHILD/ SCAPEGOAT/ ENTREPRENEUR/

PHILANTHROPIST/ COSMOPOLITAN ENTITY/ INVITED GUEST/

THE US GOVERNMENT/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

COMPETENT LEADER/ EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCER

(PERSONIFICATION: POSITIVE) 8.5% 7.3% 2.3% 7.1%

Based on the macro-overview of these four empirically significant USAS domains and the accompanying key lexical items, three general metaphorical evaluative strands can be discerned:

• Firstly, the predominance of a sympathetic portrayal of BP can be discerned in both the G-corpus and the TT-corpus This seems to indicate the foregrounding of nationalistic interests where BP is a major economic contributor in the British business landscape Thus, it

is significant to note the TT-corpus’ subtle foregrounding of the range

of pragmatic pro-business considerations behind the US Government’s role in the BP disaster This seems to be an effort at establishing a universal framework that favours pragmatism in order to mitigate BP’s role in the disaster

• Secondly, there is a clear pre-eminence of the “WAR/CRIME/CONFLICT”

conceptual key in the TT-corpus when compared to the G-corpus A closer examination of this conceptual key shows that the TT-corpus seems to adopt a more nationalistic and critical approach in the portrayal of the US Government/ Obama Administration’s role in the disaster It also predominantly adopts a pragmatic approach that conceptualises the notion of BUSINESS as a WAR/ STRATEGY/ GAME OF SURVIVAL A more textured, in-depth analysis will take place the following sections in this chapter

• Finally, an overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the US Government’s involvement can be seen in the “GREEN ISSUES” Semantic Domain, possibly reflecting a third-party’s concern with the environment This contrasts significantly with the American broadsheets’ focus on the extent of the extent of the economic damage to the state, rather than on the lofty ideals of environmentalism and conservation This is a clear indication of how context and core national concerns influence the nature and coverage of the corresponding broadsheet content

A notable parallel with the metaphorical framing of the disaster in the American broadsheets would be the preponderance of Ontological

Metaphors (specifically, the personification of the corporate entities involved as well as the “oil” spillage itself) and Structural Metaphors in both corpora The differences in statistical distribution can be seen in Tables 5.2-5.3 below

Table 5.2 – An overview of the Metaphor Type Distribution in the G-Corpus

G-Corpus (202 Metaphorical TYPES out of 188,788 words)

Table 5.3 – An overview of the Metaphor Type Distribution in the TT-Corpus

TT-Corpus (147 Metaphorical Types out of 156,459 words)

However, it is interesting to note the overwhelming predominance of Ontological Metaphors (specifically Personification) in both sets of corpora This preference for Personification over other types of metaphor is clearly explained by Charteris-Black (2005, p.174) where personification is seen as “a way of making abstract ideological issues meaningful and is therefore a major leadership strategy during times of national crisis” in both America and

representing the associations between the parties and corporate entities involved in the disaster in the form of interactions between individuals with particular behavioural traits e.g BP IS A REPENTANT CRIMINAL MAKING RESTITUTION, BP IS A VICTIM OF UNFAIR POLICIES, THE US GOVERNMENT IS A INCOMPETENT LAW ENFORCER, THE OIL IS THE ENEMY, THE ENVIRONMENT IS

Structural metaphors also play a significant role in structuring the understanding of the readers The predominance of a nationalistic agenda ranks high across all the four corpora examined in this thesis The CONFLICT

scenario (specifically embodied by the POLITICS IS WAR/ BUSINESS IS WAR

metaphor keys) seems to be a unifying thread throughout the respective broadsheets The nationalistic elements in the British corpora are brought to the fore in the activated mental model where British interests (British investments, a British-based company and British pride) are portrayed as being under relentless attack by an overwhelming external force (THE US GOVERNMENT IS A HUNTER/ AGGRESSOR) This essentially foregrounds the framework of CONFLICT (WAR) as a systematic explanation of the causes and solutions to the economic and social problems faced by the aggrieved parties

on both sides of the divide This CONFLICT scenario has potentially created a distorted view of the socio-political and economic repercussions to both British and American societies by negating the option of a compromise or middle ground

For the remaining sections of this analysis, I will analyse the general metaphorical evaluative strands identified above through a close examination

of the metaphor types and embodiments These differences will then be expounded through an in-depth analysis of the expanded contexts of selected segments in order to systematically uncover the metaphorical evaluations and ideologies represented by the G-corpus and the TT-corpus These expanded contextual analyses are vital as statistics and numbers do not reveal the metaphorical textures behind how events are covered

The analysis for this chapter will take the following structure:

• A comparative analysis of the sympathetic portrayal of BP This refers

to the foregrounding of British nationalistic interests in the G and corpus (“Damage”/ “History”/ “Rhetoric”/ “Environment”)

TT-• A comparative analysis of the pre-eminence of the

WAR/CRIME/CONFLICT conceptual keys in the TT & G-Corpus (“Oil_Modifies”)

5.3 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests: The sympathetic

portrayal of BP in the British Broadsheets

It is interesting to note the more significant statistical distribution in the portrayal of BP’s role in the oil spill for the TT-corpus across the target lexical items This can be seen in Table 5.1 where 36.4% of the metaphor tokens mined from the TT-corpus provide a sympathetic portrayal of BP compared with 22.6% of metaphors that portray BP negatively On the other hand, even though the G-corpus has a significantly lesser proportion of positive BP portrayals in terms of metaphorical tokens (25.3%), there is also a clear slant in mitigating BP’s agency in the entire matter (only 14.1% of the metaphor types in the G-corpus portray BP negatively) This can be attributed

to the strong pro-business, pragmatic inclination that is embodied by the corpus, where even though the virtues of BP are extolled, the pragmatic focus

TT-on actually resolving the tensiTT-on between allies takes BP’s role in the disaster into full account This is further substantiated through the proliferation of the

WAR/CRIME/THREAT conceptual keys that are significantly more pronounced

in the TT-Corpus (68.1%) than in the G-Corpus (42.3%) This is due to fact that the bulk of the WAR/CRIME/THREAT metaphors in the TT-corpus falls under the metaphor key of BUSINESS IS CONFLICT/ A GAME OF SURVIVAL

rather than in direct reference to the actions of the US Government and BP This clearly shows the ideological disjunction between the two sets of corpora The TT-corpus seems to place a heavy emphasis on the pragmatic, pro-business side of the issue with BP portrayed as a key ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTOR in the British economy In contrast, the G-corpus seems to

focus more on the nationalistic and ideological aspects of the conflict, foregrounding the two predominant reciprocal ontological metaphors (BP IS A VICTIM/ RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE CITIZEN and the US GOVERNMENT IS AN INCOMPETENT PERSON/CORRUPT PERSON)

5.3.1 The Foregrounding of Nationalistic Interests in the G-corpus

(Damaging and Destroying_7_G: ‘Damage’)

Figure 5.3 shows an amalgamated concordance mined from the corpus based on empirical suggestion by the Sketch Engine for the statistically salient lexical item “Damage” (Damaging and Destroying_7_G)

G-Fig 5.3

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Economic’/ ‘Political’/‘Reputation’ in Word Sketch (All instances – Modifier/ PP_to_i)

Figure 5.3 foregrounds two overarching metaphorical strands:

• Firstly, the victimization of BP is clearly foregrounded in the G-corpus This can be seen in the way BP is overwhelmingly portrayed as a

VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS AND BIASED LEGISLATION and a

absolution of BP’s culpability can be seen as a potentially politically incendiary stance considering BP’s unquestionable central agency in the catastrophe This idea is further reinforced by the implicit reference that BP has been unfairly judged by the court of public opinion, even before a trial has taken place The node term “political damage” further highlights the Obama’s weak political position as a direct consequence

of the BP oil spill These concordances foreground the overarching

CONFLICT scenario where BP is made the VICTIM as a result of circumstances beyond its control, specifically due to the Obama Administration’s need to draw battle lines in order to unify the nation against a FOREIGN AGGRESSOR while mitigating its own agency in the lead-up to the disaster

• Secondly, it is interesting to note how the node term “reputational damage” (made in reference to BP’s socio-political standing) is directly interlinked with the idea of economic losses and a falling share price These metaphors from the finance domain seem to be rooted in Lakoff’s (2002, p.45) notion of a moral accounting metaphor where

“moral book-keeping is vital to social functioning” This forms the basis for the underlying principle of retribution and restitution throughout this comparative metaphorical study

Text 5.1 is the result of the expansion of one of the concordance lines in Figure 5.3

Text 5.1

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Economic’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

The expanded context clearly portrays BP as the VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS This is seen by the “absurd demand” that BP “support(s) the economies for four US states” The ontological personification of BP as a

VICTIM clearly serves to hide its culpability as the main cause of the oil spill, foregrounding instead, the political weakness of the Obama Administration in needing “enough ammunition to convince a skeptical US audience” of its own competence The deliberate use of the lexical item “ammunition” serves to imply an overarching WAR/CONFLICT scenario (POLITICS IS WAR) According

to the Macmillan Online Dictionary, the term “ammunition” can be a literal reference to the bullets and bombs fired from a weapon in times of war or it can also be a metaphorical reference to the facts or evidence that can be used against someone in an argument This serves to underscore the underlying metaphors of the Obama Administration being a WEAK WAR GENERAL, and of the US Government being an AGGRESSOR. Thus, the metaphorical portrayal of

BP as a VICTIM OF BIASED LEGISLATION and British investors as VICTIMS,

serves to galvanise British public opinion behind a thinly veiled veneer of nationalism

Another dominant metaphorical thread running through the G-corpus is also exemplified through Text 5.1: namely the CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

scenario The direct references to concrete and significant sums (“pounds 14 billion”/ “$20bn”) seem to imply that the perpetrators of the oil spill, specifically BP, has incurred a vast moral debt that requires drastic measures

in order for social order to be restored (Lakoff, 2002) These drastic measures include concrete sums of money as a direct compensation for lost earnings as well as punitive measures in order to send a message of deterrence to the oil industry in general In other words, the size of the debt seems to warrant drastic government measures in an effort to restore moral and social equilibrium Charteris-Black (2005) makes an astute observation when he states that “the force of the moral accounting metaphor has not always permitted a clear distinction between retribution and revenge” (p.188) This underlying sense of injustice is captured by the British broadsheets in the way

BP seems to be made the convenient villain despite the fact that there are multiple factors and a range of non-British corporations that are directly involved in the catastrophe i.e Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (a US-based oil and gas exploration and production company), Transocean Ltd (a Swiss-based offshore drilling contractor), Mitsui Oil Exploration Company (a Japan-based oil exploration subsidiary) In other words, the desire for revenge and the political need to mitigate the US Government’s failures in legislative enforcement has led to British interests becoming COLLATERAL DAMAGE, in

an extension of the WAR/CONFLICT scenario. This is embodied by the unfair vilification of BP at the expense of bringing all the other guilty parties to justice and the plight of British investors who have invested heavily in BP as a key resource for their pension funds The reference made to “dealing a blow to British pension funds” in Text 5.2 also makes an ontological reference to the

British pension fund as an entity that is “harmed, upset or shocked” (in the context of the Macmillan Online Dictionary) These repercussions are further expanded in Text 5.2 by the deliberate portrayal of BP as CORE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTOR for Britain, America and beyond in the “$6.3bn it pays in global corporate income tax”:

Text 5.2

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Reputational’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

The economic centrality of BP is further highlighted in Text 5.3 where the Cameron Administration is metaphorically portrayed as a CONCERNED PARENT and MEDIATOR in the entire conflict The expanded context clearly shows how pragmatic economic concerns play a significant role in the resultant political negotiations Cameron’s focus was on how BP’s financial

“strength and stability” was in “everyone’s interest” It is interesting to note how the metaphors of the CONCERNED PARENT and MEDIATOR serve to inadvertently conceal the idea of ethical legitimacy This is simply because the assumption of neutral mediation is an erroneous one and threatens the compensation claims of those most directly affected by the oil spill The seemingly neutral utilitarian stance that favours BP’s continued financial

“strength and stability” is an arbitrary perspective that strongly favours British and American interests in general, while overlooking the losses of the real victims Text 5.3 highlights BP’s status as a CORE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN ECONOMY as it is referred to as a “financially

Cameron Administration’s interests by ensuring that the British electorate do not pay the price for the misdeeds of a single company The repeated portrayal

of BP as a RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE CITIZEN and as a RESPONSIBLE DEBTOR MAKING RESTITUTION also masks the irreparable damage to the environment and to livelihoods that cannot be undone as a result of the disaster This can be seen in Svanberg’s statement in Text 5.3 that “BP will continue to do all that it can to stop the oil spill, clean up the damage and meet all legitimate claims for compensation”:

Text 5.3

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Environmental’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

Finally, the G-corpus chooses to focus on the element of nationalistic fervor in the clear reference to BP as “the pride of the British corporate world” (Text 5.4) It is significant to note the detached reference to the “rogue well in the Gulf of Mexico” that serves to avoid the claim of agency in the cause of the spill This deliberate reference to a “rogue well” is even more strategic as

it contains inherent connotations of the well being “an animal of vicious character that has separated from the main herd and leads a solitary life”, in the process bringing attention away from BP’s ownership of the well, emphasising instead, on the random nature of the occurrence The metaphor that portrays BP as a RESILIENT ENTITY is emphasised in the reference to a

“new BP” that will be reborn from amidst the chaos Pride in BP’s economic

and political resilience as well as the reference to BP being the VICTIM OF UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES is clearly demonstrated in the effective use

of imagery and linguistic metaphors stating how BP’s “reputation for engineering excellence, entrepreneurial daring and marketing razzmatazz” has been beaten from “its trademark green and yellow to black and blue” The direct reference to BP’s iconic colours and emblem serve to establish a powerful emotional association in the readers This serves to play on BP’s inherent Britishness to evoke the nationalistic emotional associations pertaining to BP’s plight The ingenious use of image and analogy-based metaphors in tandem with the metaphor of UNFAIR VICTIMIZATION serves to ensure that the idealistic nationalistic impetus favoured by the G-corpus is clearly foregrounded

Text 5.4

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (G Corpus) – ‘Environmental’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

5.3.2 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests in the TT-corpus

(Damaging and Destroying_6_TT: ‘Damage’)

In order to ensure a valid comparative study, the same empirically suggested lexical item (“Damage”) will be utilized for metaphorical analysis

in this section The grammatical categories found in Word Sketch for analysis

will also be kept constant Figure 5.4 is an amalgamated corpus from the corpus that is a parallel comparison to Figure 5.3 from the G-corpus:

“environmental and economic damages it may inflict on the region” as well as the “compensation for permanent economic damage” The allusion to the oil

as a SICKNESS that has “inflicted” the region calls on the HEALTH AND DISEASE metaphorical domains This overt evaluation, juxtaposing the idea of sickness and death with health and life, seems to negate BP’s agency in the spill by attributing the cause of the spill to multiple factors out of BP’s control rather than to a single cause This is demonstrated by the deliberate reference

to the innocuous and unintended affliction by an illness (e.g the “stricken

well”) Thus, it is clear that the TT-corpus adopts a cautious pragmatic approach that propagates a neutral, pro-business stance A clearer exposition can be seen in Texts 5.5-5.6:

Text 5.5

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (TT Corpus) – ‘Environmental’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

Text 5.6

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (TT Corpus) – ‘Environmental’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

Text 5.5 utilises personification to great effect in the portrayal of BP It

is widely acknowledged that personification provides an accessible framework for the evaluation of governments, corporate entities and their accompanying ideologies and policies This is due to the simple dichotomy inherent in the portrayal of abstract entities as either good or bad individuals Text 5.5 clearly portrays BP as a REPENTANT CRIMINAL MAKING RESTITUTION This is implicitly shown in the way BP is seen as trying its best to fulfill its compensation claims and “trying different methods to kill the leak” and “mop

up the oil spill” The last two references seem to show BP in the role of a

HUNTER killing a THREAT juxtaposed against the portrayal of BP as a

DOMESTIC SERVANT, dutifully mopping up the spill BP is also personified as

a VICTIM OF BETRAYAL, in the reference to the way its two partners in the rig, Anadarko and Mitsui have “both refused to pay their share of the costs” When juxtaposed against BP’s earnest efforts in making restitution, BP is clearly sympathetically portrayed as a VICTIM rather than as an aggressor in the TT-corpus This contrasts with the fervent nationalistic pronouncements in the G-corpus where BP is alternately portrayed as either the “pride of the British corporate world” or as a VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS The unifying thread embodied by the CONFLICT scenario runs strongly across the texts in the way BP’s survival is couched under two interlinked structural metaphors:

CLEANING THE OIL SPILL IS WAR and BUSINESS IS WAR This is embodied by the expressions - “hit to (BP’s) cash flow”, “trying all methods to kill the leak”,

“victims of environmental damage” and “escalating dangers” in Texts 5.5-5.6 The aggregate effect of these metaphors seem to portray a sympathetic view of

BP as the lone soldier engaged in battle with the enemy against all odds

Text 5.6 is a further extension of the portrayal of BP as a VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS BP’s willingness to put a “tentative hand up” in acknowledging its role in the blowout seems to bring forth the representation

of a CONTRITE CHILD However, the rest of the text clearly diffuses BP’s agency by apportioning blame to its two other international partners (US-based Halliburton and Swiss-based Transocean) This extract in the TT-corpus also seems to mitigate BP’s role in the spill by deleting references to its agency This can be seen in the reference to how “crucial mistakes were made (in the technical processes)” and references to the failures of the “rig’s fire-

prevention system” and the “blowout preventer” The attribution of failures in the extract seems to conceal BP’s agency and foreground the following metaphor: THE BP OIL SPILL IS AN ACCIDENT, the result of an unfortunate confluence of a series of unfortunate circumstances.

Finally, Text 5.7 provides the strongest indication of nationalistic sentiments being foregrounded in the TT-corpus Even though the general editorial stance adopted by the TT-corpus is a pragmatic, pro-business stance; the exploitation of the CONFLICT scenario is effectively achieved by calling upon the familiar mental model of SURVIVAL as well as the final purpose of

VICTORY In the context of this discourse, a strong parallel is drawn between the BP Oil Spill as the Piper Alpha Oil spill in 1988 This is embodied by the analogy-based metaphor - THE BP OIL SPILL IS THE NEW PIPER ALPHA OIL SPILL The context draws directly on the full extent of the situational parallels

in both catastrophes, including the unprecedented extent of the environmental damage, the loss of lives and the associated “bereavement and financial loss” However, the deliberate contrast is made along nationalistic metaphorical assertions that the BRITISH GOVERNMENT IS A GENTLEMAN juxtaposed against the portrayal of the US GOVERNMENT as an UNSCRUPULOUS POLITICAL TACTICIAN These statements are made in the context where (then) PM Thatcher did not “make political capital out of the tragedy by using inflammatory language” or “engaging in government-sponsored hate campaigns” even though the “perpetrator” then was the American oil giant, Occidental Petroleum Thus, this clearly foregrounds the personification of BP

as a VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS, with the US government and media correspondingly cast as the BULLY/AGGRESSOR Taken in this light, this set of

metaphors in the TT-corpus seems to be calling upon Lakoff’s moral accounting metaphor in ensuring fair restitutive measures that truly restore existing moral and social debts into account:

Text 5.7

Collocates for ‘Damage’ (TT Corpus) – ‘Environmental’ Damage in Word Sketch (Modifier)

5.3.3 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests in the G-corpus

(Speech: Communicative_6_G: ‘History’)

Fig 5.5

Collocates for ‘History’ (G Corpus) – ‘American’ in Word Sketch (All 10 instances – Modifier)

In Figure 5.5, the concordances for the node term “American History”

in the G-corpus mainly reference the scale and the magnitude of the devastating oil spill in American history However, four out of ten references point to a positive conclusion to the saga, indirectly mitigating BP’s role in the disaster This is a significant contrast to the American broadsheets where the portrayals of BP as a CRIMINAL/ RECIDIVIST/ UNSCRUPULOUS PRAGMATIST

are stark and unhedged Texts 5.8-5.9 below clearly extend the positive metaphorical portrayal of BP in the G-corpus:

Text 5.8

G-corpus – Screenshot for “American History” in SkE

Text 5.9

G-corpus – Screenshot for “American History” in SkE

Text 5.8 clearly foregrounds BP’s success in “capping the gushing well” The concerns raised in this short extract mainly highlight the more immediate pragmatic considerations of ensuring BP’s political and economic equilibrium across all spectrums The pragmatic thrust embodied by Text 5.8

is shown in the way Hayward’s departure to the Kovykta oil field in Siberia is seen as a carefully calculated political move in order to “smooth the transition” for new BP Chief Executive, Bob Dudley – who also left Kovykta in similarly acrimonious circumstances “two years ago”, much in the vein of Hayward’s current departure from BP Hence, it is clear that the entire discourse in Text

5.8 foregrounds the conceptual key: BUSINESS IS A GAME OF STRATEGY, deliberately making no mention of the agency in the cause of the BP oil spill Instead, the concerns that were brought forth focus on ensuring Hayward’s new appointment “will not anger politicians in the US” This reveals the overarching conceptual metaphor in the G-corpus that personifies BP as a

CORE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE ECONOMY, highlighting the fact that BP’s political and economic survival is of paramount importance to all parties concerned The discourse also makes tangential reference to Hayward’s

“unfairly attributed” status as a political scapegoatin the American media It is interesting to note how the concealment of agency and blame attribution is hidden in the G-corpus under the ontological metaphor of personification In this instance, the personification of BP embodies the powerful collective pragmatic need to ensure one’s own survival

Text 5.9 goes a step further by proclaiming BP as the PRIDE OF BRITAIN, lauding its “aggressive global ambition” that “ensured intense British government admiration” It also portrays BP as the force that unifies both

“Conservative and Labour” in their policies by advancing Britain’s economic and political agendas These proud nationalistic proclamations go as far as to elevate BP’s status to that of a diplomat where its business is seen as “British foreign policy by another route” The intentional reference to the “East India Company” is a contextual metaphor that hails Britain’s lauded colonial past as

a world power in the 1900s Hence, Texts 5.8-5.9 clearly have the intended persuasive effect of strengthening the positive evaluation of BP as an entity This is done by:

• Foregrounding BP’s unfair victimization at the hands of American media

• Highlighting BP’s key political and economic contributions to Britain and beyond

• Drawing parallel evaluations with Britain’s glorious past (as symbolised by the key role played by the East India Company)

These three metaphorical strands work in tandem to legitimise and mitigate BP’s role in the entire saga in the G-corpus

5.3.4 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests in the TT-corpus

(Speech: Communicative_8_TT: ‘History’)

In contrast, a closer examination of the node word “history” in the corpus shows a divergent metaphorical strand (Figure 5.6):

emphasises the pragmatic pro-business stance favoured by the TT-corpus which is in contrast to the nationalistic, pro-BP stance adopted by the G-corpus

Text 5.10 clearly foregrounds the idea of BP as a VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS This can be seen in the way BP is blatantly portrayed as a CRIMINAL

with a “flagrant history of taking risks to boost profits that has resulted in deaths of workers, destruction of the environment and economic chaos in local communities” in American media The intentional reference to BP’s “flagrant history” highlights BP’s openly outrageous behaviour and business practices that break a multitude of laws and are offensive The deliberate use of quotations marks is clearly aimed at distancing the TT-editorial team from the partisan viewpoints expressed by US Democratic politician, Miller Miller’s portrayal of BP borders on hyperbole, constructing BP’s business practices as criminal, destructive and exploitative:

Text 5.10

TT-corpus – Screenshot for “flagrant history” in SkE

This biased media portrayal is further reinforced in Text 5.11 where

BP is portrayed by US politicians to be an UNSCRUPULOUS PRAGMATIST who was “willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 people for oil profits” The incendiary reference to “Libyan blood money” plays once again on Lakoff’s

moral accounting metaphor where the concept of value (as embodied by money) forms the basis for ethical evaluation The reference to “blood money”

is an archaic religious reference to the restitution made by a murderer to the victim’s kin The extended reference to “Libyan blood money” further reinforces the negative evaluation placed on BP by questioning the legitimacy

of the settlement of this moral debt This alludes to the irony inherent in the

“immoral” measures taken by BP in order to restore its moral debt Furthermore, the seemingly ruthless victimization of BP by the US politicians and media is brought forth in the following factual statement that “BP is not the only company that deals with Libya” The injustice is underscored by the fact that BP’s rival American counterparts, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, “have already begun drilling in Libya’s deep water Sirte basin” (Text 5.11):

Text 5.11

TT-Corpus – Screenshot for “Oil Company” in SkE

These attributed statements show how these incendiary and biased portrayals

of BP serve to galvanise the US House and Senate into combat against the foreign aggressor, drawing clear battle lines in the process of mitigating the Obama Administration’s culpability in the oil spill This serves to highlight the intense (and unfair) political pressure placed upon BP by American politicians

by casting BP as a CRIMINAL and UNSCRUPULOUS PRAGMATIST

In a parallel strand, Text 5.12 also foregrounds the pragmatic concerns associated with BP’s continued economic survival within the TT-corpus The gist of the entire excerpt foregrounds the importance of BP’s economic contributions to the American and British economies and beyond This nationalistic thrust is emphasized in the way BP’s role post-spill is mitigated

by the statement – “it is difficult to see what BP could have done differently after the blowout” Text 5.12 also foregrounds the metaphor of BP as a

CONTRITE CRIMINAL MAKING RESTITUTION by stating how it has

“provisionally agreed to the biggest compensation in corporate history” and has already taken action by “setting up a compensation fund worth pounds 13.5 billion to cover the damage caused by its leaking pipe” These statements combine in an effort to provide much needed ethical legitimacy in the light of the current overwhelmingly negative public opinion The personification of

BP as a CONTRITE CRIMINAL and RESPONSIBLE DEBTOR effectively hides BP’s negligence and agency in the lead-up to this disaster, foregrounding the overwhelmingly pragmatic philosophies mooted by the TT-corpus

Text 5.12

TT-corpus – Screenshot for “corporate history” in SkE

Hence, it is clear that the TT-corpus prefers to hedge its arguments in the context of the economic concerns and financial survival of BP, whereas

the G-corpus is focused along nationalistic lines, portraying BP as a

COMPETENT PROBLEM SOLVER and as a CORE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTOR to both the American and British economies

5.3.5 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests in the G-corpus

(Speech: Communicative_6_G: ‘Rhetoric’)

G-intertwines with the simplistic assertion – “the foreigner is the enemy” to legitimise the seemingly nationalistic stance propagated by the G-corpus The overarching CONFLICT scenario serves to legitimise the pro-BP stance by enhancing BP’s ‘British-ness’, thus invoking the emotional and ethical value

of nationalistic loyalty in the potential readers of the text Figure 5.7 makes constant references to “anti-British rhetoric”, while also accusing the Obama Administration of “hostile/disaster rhetoric” The emotional value that arises from this brand of nationalistic rhetoric usually arises from the need to galvanise the citizenry in times of WAR/CONFLICT against the hostile “other”

Text 5.13 below showcases how metaphor-use can be reversed or counter-exploited into one that strengthens the spirit and self-conviction of the intended recipients instead:

Text 5.13

G-corpus – Screenshot for “rhetoric” in SkE

The use of the CONFLICT scenario entails the implicit notion of a FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL as well as the conceptualization of an ENEMY Text 5.13 foregrounds the interesting reversal where the Obama Administration’s

“disaster rhetoric” has inadvertently resulted in an unintended drastic fall in business for the US Travel Association In this specific instance, the Obama Administration is metaphorically depicted as an UNTRUSTWORTHY PRAGMATIST who “grotesquely exaggerated the oil threat to advance his personal and party cause” The Obama Administration is also metaphorically portrayed as an INCOMPETENT WAR GENERAL who unwisely “led the charge

in the disaster” that has backfired This is seen in the reference to the Obama Administration “pathetically” making up for this lack of foresight that has resulted in American tourism becoming collateral damage, in an extension of the WAR metaphor This metaphor-reversal is aimed at reinforcing British national identity in order to facilitate an anti-American political stance Text 5.14 reinforces the powerful collective emotion of nationalism when the unfair victimization of BP is once again brought to the forefront The evocation of

this sense of injustice is further heightened when equally culpable parties such

as the US contractor, Halliburton, seem to escape the crime-scene virtually unscathed The nesting of an alternative metaphor within the CONFLICT

scenario serves to strengthen the nationalistic ideology within the G-corpus This is achieved through the conflation of the two metaphor keys: POLITICS IS WAR and BUSINESS IS WAR This CONFLICT scenario is also embodied by the expression referring to the “continued attacks on the company”, referencing the core embodiment of “using weapons to defeat an enemy” to transmit the idea of a very strong public castigation of BP This can be seen in the way the mayor of London attributes Obama’s “anti-British rhetoric” for causing the investment losses sustained by “huge numbers of British pensioners” Hence, the strategic intertwining of pragmatic economic interests with nationalistic sentiments serves to portray BP (and by extension, British interests) as a

VICTIM OF PARTISAN POLITICS It is important to note how the deliberate simplification of political issues along the lines of nationalistic sentiments through the use of metaphor serves to nullify critical engagement by the average text consumer due to the simplistic portrayal of moral absolutes

Text 5.14

G-corpus – Screenshot for “rhetoric” in SkE

5.3.6 The foregrounding of nationalistic interests in the TT-corpus

(Speech: Communicative_8_TT: ‘Rhetoric’)