Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Qualitative›Critical Metaphor Analysis — Examining Ideology Through Metaphor
Process / pipelineQualitative design / analysis

Critical Metaphor Analysis — Examining Ideology Through Metaphor

Critical Metaphor Analysis · Also known as: CMA, critical metaphor research, corpus-based critical metaphor analysis, ideological metaphor analysis

Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) is a qualitative method for uncovering how metaphorical language constructs, legitimises, or contests power relations and ideological positions in texts. Developed by Jonathan Charteris-Black (2004), it integrates Conceptual Metaphor Theory with the evaluative concerns of Critical Discourse Analysis to reveal the persuasive and ideological work performed by metaphors in political, institutional, and media discourse.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Critical Metaphor Analysis
Critical Content AnalysisCritical Discourse Analy…Critical Thematic Analys…Interpretive Discourse A…Interpretive Metaphor An…Digital Metaphor analysis

When to use it

Use Critical Metaphor Analysis when the research question concerns how language — specifically metaphorical framing — constructs social reality, legitimises power, or advances ideological positions in public or institutional texts. It is well-suited to political communication, media discourse, policy documents, organisational texts, and any domain where persuasion and framing are at stake. The method requires naturally occurring text data; it is not designed for experimental or survey data. Do not use CMA when the research goal is merely descriptive cataloguing of metaphors without critical intent — standard conceptual metaphor analysis suffices for that. Avoid applying CMA to data sets too small or homogeneous to reveal recurrent patterns (fewer than five or six substantial texts will likely yield findings too thin to support ideological claims).

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Reveals ideological and persuasive functions of language that purely descriptive metaphor analysis or content analysis would miss.
  • Theoretically grounded at the intersection of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis, providing clear analytic principles.
  • Applicable to diverse text types — political speeches, news media, policy reports, social media, and organisational documents.
  • Highlights whose perspectives and interests are naturalised or marginalised by dominant metaphorical frames.
  • Can be combined with corpus-linguistic tools (e.g., frequency counts, collocations) to add empirical rigour to interpretive claims.
  • Well-cited methodological tradition with extensive published exemplars, making quality benchmarking feasible.
Limitations
  • Findings are context-bound and interpretive; they are not statistically generalisable to populations beyond the analysed corpus.
  • Identifying the boundary between metaphorical and literal language requires consistent operationalisation (MIP/MIPVU) and inter-rater agreement checks to enhance reliability.
  • The critical-evaluative step requires explicit reflexivity about the researcher's own ideological standpoint, which is methodologically demanding and rarely achieved fully.
  • Large corpora demand substantial time for close reading; the depth that makes CMA valuable conflicts with breadth.

Frequently asked

How is Critical Metaphor Analysis different from ordinary metaphor analysis?

Ordinary or descriptive metaphor analysis (as in classic Conceptual Metaphor Theory) identifies and categorises metaphorical mappings to understand cognition and language. CMA adds an explicit critical-evaluative layer: it asks whose interests the observed metaphors serve, how they construct social reality, and what power relations they reinforce or contest. The critical step is not optional decoration — it is the defining commitment of the method.

How many texts or how large a corpus do I need?

There is no fixed minimum, but the corpus must be large enough for recurrent metaphorical patterns to emerge and for ideological interpretation to move beyond single instances. In corpus-assisted CMA, researchers commonly work with tens to hundreds of texts; in qualitative CMA, a smaller purposive set of highly relevant texts is acceptable provided the interpretive claims are proportionately modest and grounded in what the data actually show.

Do I need computational tools to do CMA?

Not necessarily. CMA can be conducted through close reading alone. However, corpus-linguistic tools (AntConc, Sketch Engine, or similar) are valuable for identifying metaphor candidates efficiently in large corpora and for supporting frequency-based claims. The critical-interpretive analysis always requires human judgment; software assists identification and quantification, not interpretation.

Can CMA be combined with other methods?

Yes, and it commonly is. CMA is frequently combined with broader Critical Discourse Analysis to situate metaphor within wider discourse patterns, with corpus linguistics to add quantitative texture, or with multimodal analysis when visual metaphors co-occur with verbal ones. The method is also used alongside interview-based approaches to compare how the same social actors frame issues in public texts versus private talk.

How do I handle researcher bias in the ideological interpretation step?

Researcher positionality is expected to be explicit in CMA, not eliminated. Document your own standpoint and how it may affect what you notice and how you interpret it. Use the systematic MIP/MIPVU identification step to separate linguistic identification from subsequent interpretation, and consider using a second analyst to check metaphor identification for consistency. Transparent audit trails and reflexivity sections in write-ups are standard practice.

Sources

  1. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-1403932921
  2. Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Critical Metaphor Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/critical-metaphor-analysis

Related methods

Critical Content AnalysisCritical Discourse AnalysisCritical Thematic AnalysisInterpretive Discourse AnalysisInterpretive Metaphor Analysis

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Critical Content AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
  • Critical Discourse AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
  • Critical Thematic AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
  • Interpretive Discourse AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
  • Interpretive Metaphor AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Digital Metaphor analysis

Similar methods

Metaphor AnalysisInterpretive Metaphor AnalysisDigital Metaphor analysisMultiple Case-Based Metaphor AnalysisLongitudinal Metaphor AnalysisCritical Discourse AnalysisCritical Content AnalysisInterpretive critical discourse analysis

Related reference concepts

Critical Discourse AnalysisCritical Theory as MethodDiscourse AnalysisDiscourse AnalysisFoucauldian Discourse TheoryRhetorical Criticism

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Critical Metaphor Analysis (Critical Metaphor Analysis). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/critical-metaphor-analysis · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Jonathan Charteris-Black
Year
2004
Type
Qualitative-critical textual analysis
DataType
Spoken and written texts (political speeches, media, interviews, institutional documents)
Subfamily
Qualitative design / analysis
Related methods
Critical Content AnalysisCritical Discourse AnalysisCritical Thematic AnalysisInterpretive Discourse AnalysisInterpretive Metaphor Analysis
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account