Gaining and sustaining support for novel ventures is a vital yet difficult entrepreneurial process. Previous research on this topic has generally focused on the social competence and social capital of those creating new ventures, and their ability to align their ventures, with collective norms of novel ventures as sensible, acceptable and legitimate. We suggest that sensegiving – the ability to communicate a meaningful course for a venture – to investors and employees may also play a direct role in achieving support for a venture. Based upon a micro-ethnographic study of two individuals who were in the process of creating new ventures, we demonstrate how they give sense, to others in real time that involve not just their speech but also their gestures. Overall, we find evidence that in the early stages of the commercialization of a venture, metaphors in both speech and gesture are consistently used to emphasize agency and control and the predictability and taken-for-grantedness of a novel venture.

The metaphorical components of two cognitive models of moral/political systems, presented in Lakoff (1996 [2002]), were tested empirically, using a set of televised debates between two candidates for US president as data. Few verbal metaphoric expressions were found in the data which directly reflected the conceptual metaphors proposed in the models. However, a large number of mostly non-metaphoric expressions were found which constitute entailments of the models. This suggests a form of reasoning according to the logic of the proposed metaphors. The speakers’ metaphoric gestures in one of the debates were then coded and analyzed. Quantitative analysis produced results similar to the linguistic analysis, but qualitative analysis highlighted significant differences between the models, both in terms of their composition and how they can be expressed. The study raises methodological issues for metaphor research, and theoretical questions about the ways of identifying and labeling conceptual metaphors and about the status of cognitive and cultural models.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Lakoff (1996) analyzes American political positions in terms of two different sets of conceptual metaphors: the right wing ‘Strict Father’ (SF) model and the left wing ‘Nurturant Parent’ (NP) model. The current study is an empirical test of the degree to which these models were manifested in the televised debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore before the 2000 US presidential elections. While the results show little metaphorical language which would directly support the proposed models, many expressions were found which follow from the models as logical entailments. An analysis of both speakers’ metaphoric gestures shows Bush expressing the SF model largely regardless of his use of SF or NP language, and Gore using gesture more for discourse structuring purposes. This study suggests that differences in the nature of the metaphors themselves in the two models help make the SF model easier to present as a coherent framework than the NP model.