Conceptual metaphors guide our thinking and actions by allowing us to reason about more abstract experiences (e.g., paying taxes) in terms of more concrete or embodied experiences (e.g., carrying a physical load) (Lakoff and Johnson, 2011). It follows that different conceptual metaphors can result in different reasoning: framing paying taxes as an investment in a community rather than a physical load leads to a very different outlook on taxation. Identifying the conceptual metaphors guiding a speaker or writer thus helps to reveal their framing of events. Though these metaphors can't be observed directly, groups of linguistic metaphors, metaphorical expressions as they appear in language, serve as evidence for them. Motivated by this, we present an unsupervised method that extracts linguistic metaphors from a corpus and uses a structured clustering approach to form groups corresponding to conceptual metaphors. Using this method, we point to key topical and framing differences in left- vs. right-leaning podcasts. For example, left-leaning podcasts tend to conceptualize media stories as a weapon, while right-leaning sources commonly discuss the economy as a system subject to vertical changes.
Metaphors are powerful framing devices, yet their source domains alone do not fully explain the specific associations they evoke. We argue that the interplay between source domains and semantic frames determines how metaphors shape understanding of complex issues, and present a computational framework that allows to derive salient discourse metaphors through their source domains and semantic frames. Applying this framework to climate change news, we uncover not only well-known source domains but also reveal nuanced frame-level associations that distinguish how the issue is portrayed. In analyzing immigration discourse across political ideologies, we demonstrate that liberals and conservatives systematically employ different semantic frames within the same source domains, with conservatives favoring frames emphasizing uncontrollability and liberals choosing neutral or more ``victimizing'' semantic frames. Our work bridges conceptual metaphor theory and linguistics, providing the first NLP approach for discovery of discourse metaphors and fine-grained analysis of differences in metaphorical framing. Code, data and statistical scripts are available at https://github.com/julia-nixie/ConceptFrameMet.
Earlier research has shown that metaphors influence human decision-making, raising the question of whether metaphors also influence large language models (LLMs)' reasoning pathways, given that their training data contain a large number of metaphors. In this work, we investigate the problem in the scope of the emergent misalignment problem, where LLMs can generalize patterns learned from misaligned content in one domain to another domain. We find strong evidence that metaphors in training data contribute to cross-domain misalignment in LLMs' reasoning outputs. With metaphor-based interventions during continued pre-training and fine-tuning for inducing misalignment, models exhibit significantly different degrees of emergent cross-domain misalignment. We also observe similar effects in re-alignment settings. As we further investigate this phenomenon, we find that metaphors are linked to the activation of latent features in large reasoning models. By monitoring these latent features, we design a detector that predicts misaligned content with high accuracy.
Climate discourse online shapes public understanding of climate change and informs political and policy debate, yet it unfolds across structurally different environments: paid advertising platforms host targeted, institutionally produced messaging, while public social media reflects largely organic, user-driven discussion. We present a comparative analysis of climate discourse across paid advertisements on Meta (previously Facebook) and public posts on Bluesky from July 2024 to September 2025. To support it, we develop an interpretable thematic discovery pipeline that clusters texts by semantic similarity and uses large language models (LLMs) to label clusters with concise, human-interpretable themes, requiring no predefined topic inventory or seed set. Using these themes, we find the two environments diverge systematically: paid advertising centers on strategic promotion of specific solutions in a formal, forward-looking register, whereas organic discourse centers on systemic critique in a crisis-oriented, scientifically grounded one. We also evaluate the utility of the discovered themes through downstream stance prediction and theme-guided retrieval tasks. While our analysis focuses on climate communication, the framework generalizes to comparative thematic analysis across heterogeneous communication environments.