• Vladimir N. Figar


framing, conceptual metaphor, MIPVU, viewpoint, image schemas, small specialized corpus, WordSmith, chatbot


Through a combined quantitative-qualitative approach the paper aims to explore the densities and possible rhetorical effects of the most common metaphorical framings used in the New York Times online press reports about ChatGPT. The theoretical framework is based on the main tenets of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]), frame semantics (Fillmore 1982), and image schema theory (Johnson 1987). The initial stage involved the construction of a small specialized corpus which was tagged manually for the analysis in WordSmith Tools 6.0. Metaphor identification was conducted in line with MIPVU (STEEN et al. 2010). Quantitative analysis showed the highest density for containment, motion, and force metaphors. Living being, tool, conflict, and machine metaphors were also present, but not as frequent. The linear regression model (motion, force, living being) explained 61% of variance in the density of containment metaphors, and it was significant (p=.002). Additional linear regression models have also been tested. The results suggest the potential for interaction of these metaphor groups when they cooccur in discourse (i.e., they may work in concert to construct a specific viewpoint). Qualitative analysis showed a range of possible rhetorical effects that the identified metaphorical framings may play (e.g., making AI more appealing by framing it as a living being or tool, raising doubts about the use of AI by constructing borders and containers, or framing AI as a threat). Results of qualitative analysis should be understood as testable hypotheses that remain to be further explored and validated in experimental settings.


Download data is not yet available.


BLACK 1962: Black, Max. Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962.

BOEYNAEMS et al. 2017: Boeynaems, Amber, Burgers, Christian, Konijn, Elly, A., and Steen, Gerard. J. “The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Overview.” Metaphor and Symbol, 32: 2 (2017): pp. 118–134.

EMBLER 1966: Embler, Weller. Metaphor and Meaning. DeLand, Florida: Everet and Edwards, Inc., 1966.

EVANS and GREEN 2006: Evans, Vyvyan, and Green, Melanie. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.

FIGAR 2019: Figar, Vladimir. “Evaluating the “dynamics” of a metaphor cluster through the relevant dimensions of individual metaphorical expressions.” Philologia Mediana, 11, (2019): pp. 233–248.

FIGAR 2021: Figar, Vladimir. Semantic frame activation and contextual aptness of metaphorical expressions. Ph.D. Thesis. Niš: Faculty of Philosophy, 2021.

FILLMORE 1969: Fillmore, Charles, J. “Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description.” Paper in Linguistics, 1: 1 (1969): pp. 91–117.

FILLMORE 1975: Fillmore, Charles, J. “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1975): pp. 123–131.

FILLMORE 1976: Fillmore, Charles, J. “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, 280: 1 (1976): pp. 20–32.

FILLMORE 1982: Fillmore, Charles, J. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea, eds., 1982: pp. 111–137. Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Publishing Company.

FILLMORE 1985: Fillmore, Charles, J. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni Di Semantica, VI: 2 (1985): pp. 222–254.

FILLMORE AND ATKINS 1992: Fillmore, Charles J. and Atkins, B. T. “Towards a Frame–Based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors.” In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay, eds., 1992: pp. 75–102. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

GOZZI 1994: Gozzi, Raymond. “A Note on the Metaphorically Charged Discourse of Early Artificial Intelligence.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9: 3 (1994): pp. 233–240.

HO et al. 2018: Ho, Annabell, Hanckock, Jeff, and Miner, Adam, S. “Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations with a Chatbot.” Journal of Communication, 00, (2018): pp. 1–22.

JOHNSON 1987: Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

KHADPE et al. 2020: Khadpe, Pranav, Krishna, Ranjay, Fei-Fei, Li, Hanckock, Jeffrey, T., and Bernstein, Michael, S. “Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Collaboration.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4: CSW2 (2020): pp. 1–26.

KOESTER 2010: Koester, Almut. “Building small specialized corpora.” In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy, eds., 2010: pp. 66–79. London and New York: Routledge.

KÖVECSES 2010: Kövecses, Zoltan. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

LAKOFF 2006[1993]: Lakoff, George. “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (Cognitive Linguistics Research 34), D. Geeraerts, ed., 2006[1993]: pp. 185–238. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

LAKOFF and JOHNSON 2003[1980]: Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003[1980].

LANGACKER 1987: Langacker, Ronald, W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

MANDLER 2012: Mandler, Jane. “On the Spatial Foundations of the Conceptual System and Its Enrichment.” Cognitive Science, 36: 3 (2012), pp. 421–451.

MURPHY 1996: Murphy, Gregory, L. “On metaphoric representation.” Cognition, 60: 2 (1996): pp. 173–204.

OAKLEY 2005: Oakley, Todd. “Force-dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect.” In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Hampe and J. E. Grady, eds., 2005: pp. 443–474. Berlin and New York: Muton de Gruyter.

PETROVIĆ 1967[1933]: Petrović, Mihailo. Metafore i alegorije. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1967[1933].

RICHARDS 1965[1936]: Richards, Ivor, A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965[1936].

SCOTT 2014: Scott, Mike. WordSmith Tools Manual, Version 6.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd, 2014.

STEEN 2007: Steen, Gerard, J. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.

STEEN et al. 2010: Steen, Gerard, J., Dorts, Aletta, G., Herrmann, Berrenike, J., Kaal, Anna, A., Krennmayr, Tina, and Pasma, Tryntje. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.

WEST and TRAVIS 1991: West, David, M. and Travis, Larry, E. “The Computational Metaphor and Artificial Intelligence: A Reflective Examination of a Theoretical Falsework.” AI Magazine, 12: 1 (1991): pp. 64–79.

WYATT 2021: Wyatt, Sally. “Metaphors in critical Internet and digital media studies.” New Media & Society, 23: 2 (2021): pp. 406–416.

Corpus Sources

BRUNY 2022: Bruni, Frank. “Will ChatGPT Make Me Irrelevant?” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 15.

CHEN 2022: Chen, Brian. “How to Use ChatGPT and Still Be a Good Person.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 21.

CHEN 2022: Chen, Brian. “The Tech That Will Invade Our Lives in 2023.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 29.

COY 2022: Coy, Peter. “My So-So Encounters with ChatGPT.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 16.

GRANT 2023: Grant, Nico. “Google Calls In Help From Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. Fight.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 20.

GRANT and METZ 2022: Grant, Nico, and Metz, Cade. “A New Chat Bot Is a ‘Code Red’ for Google’s Search Business.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 21.

GRIFFITH and METZ 2023: Griffith, Erin, and Metz, Cade. “A New Area of A.I. Booms, Even Amid the Tech Gloom.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 7.

HUANG 2023: Huang, Kalley. “Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 16.

KRUGMAN 2022: Krugman, Paul. “Does ChatGPT Mean Robots Are Coming For the Skilled Jobs?” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 6.

MCMILLAN COTTOM 2022: McMillan, Cottom, Tracy. “Human This Christmas.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 20.

METZ 2022: Metz, Cade. “The New Chatbots Could Change the World. Can You Trust Them?” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 11.

METZ 2023: Metz, Cade. “A.I. Is Becoming More Conversational. But Will It Get More Honest?” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 10.

METZ 2023: Metz, Cade. “How Smart Are the Robots Getting?” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 25.

METZ and WEISE 2023: Metz, Cade, and Weise, Karen. “Microsoft to Invest $10 Billion in OpenAI, the Creator of ChatGPT.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 23.

ROOSE 2022: Roose, Kevin. “The Brilliance and Weirdness of ChatGPT.” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 5.

ROOSE 2023: Roose, Kevin. “Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 12.

SANDERS and SCHENIER 2023: Sanders, Nathan, S., and Schenier, Bruce. “How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy.” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 15.

SCHULTEN 2023: Schulten, Katherine. “How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT?” The New York Times, online, 2023, January 24.

TUFEKCI 2022: Tufekci, Zeynep. “What Would Plato Say About ChatGPT?” The New York Times, online, 2022, December 15.