Cognitive metaphor in the study of the concept of customer focus as an organizational value
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-712X-2023-1-35-41
Abstract
Aim. To study the perception of metaphors which are used to introduce customer focus as a value in the corporate discourse of modern Russian organizations.
Methodology. The study used the sociolinguistic survey method based on the author's original questionnaire. The obtained data were interpreted from the standpoint of linguistics and psychology. In total, 150 people from 50 cities of the Russian Federation took part in the survey, the average age of respondents is 45.
Results. It has been established that the metaphor “customer focus is theater” is rejected, while the metaphor “customer focus is love” is preferred by the correspondents. It is confirmed that at the present moment the definition of customer focus is undergoing changes associated with the reconsideration of the main customer service values.
Research implications. The results obtained contribute to research field of cognitive metaphor as a tool of speech influence, also making it possible to clarify the semantic relationships between the concepts under study.
About the Author
E. V. Efremova
Moscow Region State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elizaveta V. Efremova – Postgraduate Student, Department of Theory of Language, Faculty of Linguistics
ulitsa Very Voloshinoi 24, Mytishchi 141014, Moscow Region
References
1. Artemov O. Yu., Ovchinnikov S. A. [Organizational metaphors and features of their application in practice of modern management]. In: Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Ekonomika. Upravleniye. Pravo [RSUH/ RGGU BULLETIN. Series Economics. Management. Law], 2016, no. 2 (4), pp. 103–112.
2. Borodulina N. Yu., Makeyeva M. N. [Metaphor and metonymy as means of conceptualization and categorization of economic subjects]. In: Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitive Linguistics], 2008, no. 1 (14), pp. 75–79.
3. Bourdieu P. [Symbolic capital]. In: Bourdieu P. Prakticheskiy smysl [Practical meaning]. St. Petersburg, Aletheya Publ., 2001, pp. 96–104.
4. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Russ. ed.: Predstavleniye sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni. Moscow, Kanon-press-TS: Kuchkovo pole Publ., 2000. 304 p.).
5. Debord G. La Société du spectacle (Russ. ed.: Obshchestvo spektaklya. Moscow, Opustoshitel' Publ., 2011. 117 p.).
6. Efremova M. V., Chkalova O. V. [Generalization and systematization of approaches to the definition of the concept of “Customer focus”. In: Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta. Seriya: Sotsial'nyye nauki [Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. Series: Social Sciences], 2016, no. 2 (42), pp. 17–24.
7. Kolesnikov I. D. [Commentary on the Theatrum mundi metaphor in the antiquity]. In: Vestnik razvitiya nauki i obrazovaniya [Bulletin of the development of science and education], 2019, no. 2, pp. 148–156.
8. Lakoff G., Johnson M. [Metaphors We Live By]. In: Arutyunova N. D., Zhurinskaya M. A., eds. Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1990, pp. 387–415.
9. Maikova T. A. [Conceptual metaphor in sociological terminology]. In: Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Teoriya yazyka. Semiotika. Semantika [RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics], 2015, no. 3, pp. 65–72.
10. Krasnykh V. V., ed. (Neo)psikholingvistika i (psikho)lingvokul'turologiya: novyye nauki o cheloveke govoryashchem [(Neo)psycholinguistics and (psycho)linguoculturology: new sciences about a speaking person]. Moscow, Gnozis Publ., 2017. 392 p.
11. Oparina Ye. O. [Metaphor in discourse]. In: Sotsial'nyye i gumanitarnyye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura. Seriya 6: Yazykoznaniye. Referativnyy zhurnal [The social sciences and humanities. Domestic and foreign literature. Series 6. Linguistics. Abstract journal], 2021, no. 3, pp. 131– 141. DOI: 10.31249/ling/2021.03.10.
12. Teliya V. N. [Metaphorization and its role in creating a picture of the world]. In: Rol' chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke: yazyk i kartina mira [The role of the human factor in language: language and picture of the world]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988, pp. 173–204.
13. Trushkina N. V., Rynkevich N. S. [Client-Centricity: the Basic Approaches to Definition]. In: Бізнес Інформ, 2019, no. 8, pp. 244–252.
14. Cienki A. [Contemporary cognitively oriented approaches in semantics: Similarities and differences in theories and goals]. In: Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the study of language], 1996, no. 2, pp. 68–78.
15. Yadov V. A. [Rethinking Erving Goffman’s concept of frame]. In: Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial'noy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 2011, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 85–97.
16. Berti M. Elgar Introduction to Organizational Discourse Analysis. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. 224 p.
17. Packard G., Berger J. How Concrete Language Shapes Customer Satisfaction. In: Journal of Consumer Research, 2021, no. 24, vol. 47, iss. 5, pp. 787–806. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucaa038.
18. Van Herck R., Dobbenie B., Decock S. Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns. In: Intercultural Pragmatics, 2021, vol. 18, iss. 2, pp. 203–243. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2021-2003.
Review
Views:
125
Email this article 
