This chapter outlines an approach to critical discourse studies (CDS) based in cognitive linguistics. The approach (CL-CDS) investigates the conceptual representations associated with particular linguistic forms and considers the ideological and (de)legitimating functions that such representations may serve when cued in specific discursive contexts. A number of conceptual operations are identified as significant in this process of meaning-construction, including schematization, point of view and metaphor. Drawing on examples from various discourses, including media discourses of migration and political protest, I show how these conceptual processes are indexed in texts and consider the ideological and (de)legitimating potentials of the representations they yield, e.g. in inference, affect and attitude toward social actions. These qualitative analyses, grounded in cognitive linguistic theory, although psychologically plausible, remain empirically unverified. In this chapter, therefore, I further suggest that CDS and CL-CDS in particular can benefit from the incorporation of experimental methods as a form of triangulation. The chapter presents the methods and results from recent experimental studies in CL-CDS and discusses their implications for CDS more generally.

Metaphor researchers, including myself (see chapter 3), working within the framework of cognitive linguistics use a number of different terms to refer to the conceptual structures that they assume to constitute conceptual metaphors. The most commonly employed term is that of domain (as in source and target domain), but several others are also in circulation, including image schemas (e.g., Lakoff, 1990, 1993), frames (e.g,, Lakoff, 1996; Kövecses, 2006)), scenes (e.g., Grady, 1997a, b), mental spaces (e.g., Fauconnier and Turner (2002), schemas (e.g., Lakoff and Turner, 1989), and scenarios (e.g., Musolff, 2006, 2016). There are more terms in use (such as model), but the list is sufficient to indicate some terminological confusion among the practitioners of conceptual metaphor theory. But more importantly, the terminological chaos is a reflection of a serious, deep-seated theoretical-conceptual dilemma; namely, the difficulty of identifying the appropriate conceptual unit, or structure, that participates in the formation of conceptual metaphors. The present chapter is an attempt to offer a way of handling this issue .