Journal of Relationships Research
http://journals.cambridge.org/JRR
Additional services for Journal

of Relationships Research:

Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Love and Death: Relational Metaphors Following the Death of a
Child
Laura R. Umphrey and Joanne Cacciatore
Journal of Relationships Research / Volume 5 / January 2014 / e4
DOI: 10.1017/jrr.2014.4, Published online: 03 April 2014

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1838095614000043
How to cite this article:
Laura R. Umphrey and Joanne Cacciatore (2014). Love and Death: Relational Metaphors Following the Death of a
Child . Journal of Relationships Research, 5, e4 doi:10.1017/jrr.2014.4
Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRR, IP address: 24.121.71.74 on 04 Apr 2014

Journal of Relationships Research, Volume 5, e4, 1–8
c The Author(s), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd 2014.

doi 10.1017/jrr.2014.4

Love and Death: Relational Metaphors
Following the Death of a Child
Laura R. Umphrey1 and Joanne Cacciatore2
1
School of Communication, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
2
School of Social Work, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Recognised as one of the most painful human experiences, the purpose of this study was to uncover the
relational and metaphorical themes embodied in bereaved parent narratives following the death of a child.
Using a grounded approach, 420 narratives were analysed. Results of the study found (a) relational trajectory,
(b) grief/coping, and (c) communication as prominent relational themes. In the present study, bereaved
parents often described their conjugal relationship metaphorically as being in motion, as a living organism,
and as on a journey. Grief was primarily described metaphorically as a type of journey. Communication was
metaphorically described in terms of being open or closed. Discovering the experiences of bereaved parents
adds to our knowledge about how the stress of child death impacts relational resiliency. Implications are
discussed.


Keywords: bereavement, child death, grief, communication, metaphor

The death of a child is considered one of the most stressful
events that can cause significant strain on relationships
(Rosenblatt, 2000). Bereaved couples are left to negotiate
the challenge of fostering mutually supportive relationships while navigating their own grief. Supportive families
can serve as a buffering or protective effect on adjustment
following a stressful life event (Oliva, Jimenez, & Parra,
2009). Yet, without loving and supportive relational interactions, the death of a child can have a profoundly negative effect on dyadic and familial relational quality (Lohan
& Murphy, 2006). Understanding the language used by
bereaved parents to articulate their perceptions and experiences with their spousal relationships can help us better understand the lens through which they conceptualise their relationships. This area of study is valuable
as it enhances our understanding of how our linguistic
choices both constrain and delimit our human experiences (Owen, 1990). This article examines bereaved parents’ perceptions of their relationships with a specific lens
on the metaphors used. Metaphors are considered devices
that structure our perceptions and expectations. While
there is research that has examined metaphorical parental
bereavement resiliency (Young, 2008), the authors have
not found any studies that have focused on understanding the metaphors bereaved parents use to shape how
they view their conjugal relationships. This contribution
to research is important because metaphors are weaved

through our daily language and can provide a perspective through which to understand relational adaptation
following parental bereavement.
Theory of Metaphor

Metaphor is defined as ‘a figure of speech in which a word
or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is
used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy
between them’ (Merriam-Webster, 2012). The etymology
of the word is derived from the Greek language, with
‘meta’ meaning over or across, and ‘phor’ meaning to carry
(Geary, 2011). Metaphors are a common occurrence in
language, with some research suggesting that a metaphor
is utilised every 10–25 words of spoken language (Geary,
2011).
While many have conceptualised metaphor as a device
purely of poetic fabrication, others suggest that metaphor
serves as a conceptual cognitive system that embodies our perceptions of our realities (Lakoff & Johnson,
2003). These metaphors often unknowingly structure our
thought processes by shaping how we perceive, think and
behave (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Our belief and value

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE TO: Laura R. Umphrey,
School of Communication, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
AZ 86011 USA. E-mail: laura.umphrey@nau.edu

1

LAURA R. UMPHREY AND JOANNE CACCIATORE

systems are deeply entrenched in our metaphorical system
of thought. Most of our thoughts are understood in terms
of other concepts (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Lakoff and
Johnson (2003) uses the terminology of ‘source domain’
to represent that which we are familiar with and ‘target domain’ to stand for that which we are unfamiliar
with. As such, when using metaphor, we take our knowledge of the source domain and overlay those thoughts to
frame our understanding of the target domain (Lakoff &
Johnson, 2003).
Taking a broader, more comprehensive look at conceptual metaphors, Lakoff (1993) explains that there are
general metaphorical tendencies in how people describe
events in life. More specifically, Lakoff (1993) suggests that events are often conceptualised in terms of
space, motion and force. He describes the event structure metaphor in terms of states as locations (e.g., ‘He
is in love’), changes are movements (e.g., ‘We can only
go forward from here’), actions are self-propelled movements (e.g., ‘I worked myself up into a rage’), causes are
forces (e.g., ‘Her death hit us with a lot of force’), purposes are destinations (e.g., ‘We’ve made it this far’),
means are paths, and difficulties are impediments to
motion. In terms of difficulties serving as impediments
to motion toward a destination, these metaphorical difficulties are commonly expressed as blockages, features of
the terrain, burdens, counterforces or a lack of an energy
source (Lakoff, 1993). Blockages may be expressed as
‘We ran into a brick wall’. Features of the terrain might
be expressed as ‘It’s been uphill all the way’. Burdens
may be expressed in terms of ‘Carrying quite a load’.
Counterforces may be expressed in terms of ‘Quit pushing me around’. A lack of an energy source could be
expressed as ‘We’re running out of steam’. Overall, Lakoff
(1993) provides us with a framework for understanding
the central tendency of humans to describe event structures using metaphorical language in systematic ways.
The use of metaphors can aid in the understanding of different parts of life by making comparisons (what is known
to the unknown; what is familiar with the unfamiliar;
VandeCreek, 1985).
Relational Metaphors

The use of metaphor to understand how people conceptualise and create meaning regarding personal relationships
has been documented in the literature (Baxter, 2003;
Owen, 1985, 1990). These studies have identified several
metaphors that couples use to form their understand of
personal relationships. The metaphors include relationship as journey, relationship as machine, relationship as
containers, and relationship as living organism.
Relationship as journey
Relational partners often use the conceptual metaphors
‘relationship as a journey’ or ‘love-as-journey’ to form
an understanding of their relationships (Baxter, 2003;
2

Journal of Relationships Research

Owen 1985). In terms of cognitive mapping, the source
domain is considered the journey and the target domain
is the relationship. As such, they are using their existing knowledge about travel and journeys to reason and
to describe their perceptions of the process of relating.
Metaphors are used to describe the relationship in terms
of being on a dead-end street, as spinning one’s wheels,
as a long and bumpy road (car), off the track (train), as
being on the rocks (boat), or as someone needing to bail
out (plane; Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). The relationship is
conceptualised metaphorically in terms of transportation
encountering obstacles or setbacks while travelling.
Relationship as machine
A machine is considered to be an apparatus containing
multiple parts that all serve a specific function. Machines
are meant to run smoothly with precision and consistency.
However, sometimes machines require maintenance and
repair if they are not working properly. When people
describe their relationship using a machine metaphor, we
expect to find descriptions about the relationship running
smoothly, being a little off, and so on. Owen (1985, 1990)
found evidence of the ‘relationship as machine’ metaphor
through narratives that included the use of terms such as
‘shifting’, ‘rubbing’, ‘friction’, ‘timing’, ‘smooth-running’
and ‘clicking’.
Relationship as containers
The ‘relationship as containers’ metaphor uses a spatial orientation to understand relationships. As Lakoff
and Johnson (2003) suggest, the properties of containers
implies a sense of durability or stability such that there
is an inside and an outside to a container that is separated with an actual or imaginary boundary. Couples
may say they are ‘in’ a relationship; implying that there is
a well-defined inside and an outside (Baxter, 2003; Owen,
1990).
Relationship as living organism
Living organisms can be understood as an entity that is
cellular, grows, needs nurturing, needs energy, propagates
and eventually dies (Baxter, 2003). Relationships can be
conceptualised metaphorically as something that grows
(‘We grew apart’), as having good health (‘It’s a healthy
relationship’), as withering (‘We just stopped nourishing
our relationship’) or as ending (‘It was the death of our
relationship’).
While this is not an exhaustive list of the ways people can frame their understanding of relationships using
metaphor, it serves as a summary of the most common relational metaphors found in the literature. The
next section presents an overview of common metaphorical conceptualisations of grief and the grieving/coping
process.

LOVE AND DEATH

Bereavement and Grief Metaphors
The use of metaphor and storytelling in bereavement
resiliency has been documented (Gersie, 1992; Gersie &
King, 1989). Metaphors can help the bereaved to describe
and express their grief, the negotiation of the grief process
with their partner, as well as the nature of the relationships
left behind.
In the context of bereavement, several different authors
have identified useful metaphorical conceptualisation of
the grieving process. Specifically, Graves (2009) maintains that the bereaved often use the metaphor of ‘grief
as journey’ to embody their understanding of the grief
experience (Graves, 2009). She describes grief in terms of
a journey taking different paths: on a river (being pushed
and pulled in strong current), down a long and winding
road (no end in sight), on railway tracks (on a path that
is already fixed and they can’t get off ), in a tidal ebb and
flow, and as caught in a whirlpool (pain overcoming the
bereaved like waves). Schwartz-Borden (1992) suggests
that in order to help the bereaved talk about their grief,
she compares the bereaved metaphorically as an amputee.
Just as an amputee cannot ‘get over’ losing a limb, a
bereaved parent does not get over losing a child. Incidentally, the idea of ‘getting over’ something metaphorically
represents manoeuvering through an obstacle. Both situations (an amputee and the bereaved) involve enduring
pain. She extends the amputee metaphor to include rehabilitation. The bereaved and an amputee are both faced
with the challenge of living without the deceased and a
limb, respectively.
Research Questions

Considering that metaphor is pervasive and seamlessly
integrated into language, the present study sought to
uncover the common metaphorical themes that bereaved
parents used to describe their relationships following the
death of a child. Revealing the relational metaphorical
choices individuals make can shed light on how bereaved
couples socially construct their own relationships. No
studies to date have specifically examined the relational
metaphors of bereaved parents.
Based on the review of literature the following research
questions were posed:
1. What are the central relational themes that bereaved
parents report that characterise their relationships following the death of a child?
2. What metaphors are used by bereaved parents to
describe their relationship following the death of a
child?

Method
Recruitment and Respondent Characteristics

This was part of a larger, mixed-methods study of parental
bereavement conducted online (Cacciatore et al., in

press). This research was approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at the second author’s institution. A
link to an online survey using Qualtrics software was sent
to 1,120 members of a non-profit organisation that provides education and support to bereaved parents, between
June and October of 2010. Inclusion criteria included a
minimum of 18 years of age and having lost a child at
any age from any cause. Of those members, 972 email
addresses were current and valid. The initial invitation
for participation received 313 responses. To increase the
response rate, email reminders were sent and respondents
were invited to enter a drawing to receive a gift card as an
incentive to participate, resulting in a final total of 503
responses, 490 valid, for a response rate of 50.41%. This
study analyses the responses of the bereaved parents who
replied to the open-ended question (N = 420) regarding
the impact of bereavement on their relationship.
The sample of 420 bereaved parents was primarily
female (n = 398, 94.8%), Caucasian (n = 366, 87.1%),
and well educated, with most respondents having some
college education. The mean number of years since loss
of their loved one was 4.29 years (SD = 3.95).
Survey Instrument

The survey instrument contained an open-ended
response opportunity for respondents to share their stories in as much or little detail as desired. The statement
soliciting open-ended responses was: ‘In your own words,
please tell us how your loss affected your relationship with
your spouse or partner.’
Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted to discover the central
themes reported by bereaved parents regarding conjugal
adjustment. Qualitative responses were sorted to identify
elements of the stories that addressed spousal relations
following the death. An analysis of the open-ended narratives was conducted using a grounded approach (Corbin
& Strauss, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1998). A constant comparative method was followed, which involved
going back and forth comparing each utterance to the
emergent themes and checking and revising the interpretation as needed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This methodology involves reading and rereading the narratives, with
the goal of becoming immersed in the meaning structures expressed, and examining the contexts and conditions under which themes and subthemes occur (e.g.,
Umphrey & Cacciatore, 2011).
The stages of this process include assigning conceptual
labels to the data and generating categories and properties (open-coding), integrating categories and their properties, delimiting the themes, and creating thick and rich
descriptions of the emerging themes. Each statement in
the narratives was analysed to first discover and label
the concepts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
Journal of Relationships Research

3

LAURA R. UMPHREY AND JOANNE CACCIATORE

1998). Once concepts were identified, higher order categories were developed. Those higher order categories were
described in terms of their properties.
Once the properties were assigned, each code was read
and reread to determine the nature of the statement
and how to place it. The constant comparative method
was used to compare each statement with the emergent
themes to determine its fit within a theme or if new or
subthemes were necessary. Statements were rearranged
until core categories were revealed. This process continued until no new codes or categories emerged and the data
and all codes were all accounted for (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Metaphor Analysis

Provided that there is very little research on the relational
metaphors of bereaved parents, systematic metaphor analysis was used in order to capture the metaphorical patterns of thought (Schmitt, 2005). The intention of this
methodology is to step by step reconstruct the language,
thoughts, feelings, actions and contextual meaning of
bereaved parents (Schmitt, 2005). The first step in the
process was to identify the metaphors found in the text.
A metaphor is a word or phrase that can be comprehended beyond the literal contextual meaning, such that
the literal meaning is derived from an area of physical
or cultural experience. The meaning was transferred to
a second, abstract area (Schmitt, 2005). The metaphors
identified were copied to a separate list. The metaphors
were then grouped according to the same image source
and target. The metaphorical concepts went through a
process of comparison to account for the variety of manifestations and experiences. Finally, the process involved
interpretation and explication of each metaphorical concept that was generated.

Results
The results of the thematic analysis revealed three
major themes bereaved parents discussed when talking
about their conjugal relationships: relational trajectory,
grief/coping, and communication. In terms of the trajectory of the relationship with their spouse, 71.5% said that
the child death brought the couple together, 20.8% indicated that the death distanced them from their partners,
and 7.7% indicated that their relationship had periods
of strain and coming together. When addressing grieving styles, 37.2% of respondents talked about grief and
coping. Finally, when participants talked about communication, 44.6% talked about communication as being
open and 54.6% characterised it as being closed.
Thematic and Metaphor Results

All of the emergent relational narratives contained at least
one metaphorical expression. The metaphorical themes
that emerged from the data characterised the thoughts of
4

Journal of Relationships Research

bereaved parents regarding their relationship with their
spouse following the death of a child. These themes will
be described under the main narrative categories identified: (a) relational adjustment/trajectory, (b) different
grieving styles, and (c) communication skills. Each theme
and metaphorical conceptualisation will be discussed in
greater detail.
Relational adjustment/trajectory
To begin, bereaved parents talked about whether they
stayed together as a couple or separated. Many bereaved
parents referred to the loss in terms of a ‘force’ on the relationship in the form of strain (Event as Force). This strain
was revealed by the selection of metaphors used to express
this burden: ‘It strained our relationship’ and ‘Our stress
levels went through the roof’. One participant referred
to the loss in terms of it serving as a challenge (‘the loss
tested our relationship’, ‘our relationship has been challenged’). For many bereaved parents, the relational strain
caused by the death could either take the couple in one
of two directions, which was metaphorically expressed in
one narrative: ‘After her death we decided early on that it
was either going to tear us apart or make us stronger.’
Couples who intended to stay together most commonly shared the tendency to describe their relational
adaptation with their significant other in terms of a
movement toward physical closeness. Participants used
the following metaphors to express this change: ‘The
loss brought us together’, ‘We lean on each other’, ‘We
rely on each other more’, and ‘We are closer than ever’.
Others expressed the impact of the loss on the relationship metaphorically as the act of strengthening the
bond between two objects. Participants expressed this
change as: ‘It strengthened our marriage’, ‘We are more
bonded’, ‘It cemented our relationship forever’, and ‘Our
loss binded us’. Less often, but just as important, other
participants conceptualised their relationship in terms of
a living entity experiencing growth (e.g., ‘Our relationship grew stronger’ and ‘We have grown closer’) and
features of the terrain (e.g., ‘We know our relationship
can weather any storm’, and ‘We found our way back to
each other’).
For those individuals who reported emotional or intimate distancing from their significant other, most often
descriptions of the impact of the child death on the relationship were more consistent with a journey focus (Relationship as Journey). Examples of participants’ metaphorical journey statements included: ‘We drifted apart’ or ‘It
drove us apart’, ‘It was very rough’, ‘The relationship was
rocky’, and ‘It has created a lot of distance between my
spouse and I’. Other participants described the journey
using war/battle terminology: ‘My relationship with my
husband has been a battle’ and ‘After losing [deceased
child] it nearly destroyed us’. Another metaphorical conception of the loss on the couple used the idea of an object
being divided into parts (parts to a whole): ‘We split

LOVE AND DEATH

up’, ‘We broke up’, and ‘The loss tore us apart’. Other
metaphors less used but equally important included comparison to an empty container (‘My relationship with my
husband has been drained hugely’), as something heavy
being carried (‘Our loss has added a significant weight to
our already strained relationship’), and the relationship as
an object being struck (‘Our relationship has taken hits’).
Grieving styles
Grieving is a natural response to loss. To begin, grief
in relation to a partner was generally conceptualised in
terms of enduring a difficult journey (‘It was a hard and
long road’, and ‘I am trying to find my way through this
horrible journey’). Others conceptualised grief in terms
of the breadth in which it affected them (‘It affected every
corner of our lives’).
Understanding and adapting to a partner’s grieving
style proved challenging for many bereaved parents.
Acceptance of these different grieving styles was revealed
in the following collection of narratives: ‘My spouse and
I handled [deceased child’s] death differently at first’, ‘I
accept the fact that we grieve differently’, and ‘We were
able to support the others’ needs’. In terms of grieving
metaphors, participants talked relationally about being
on different paths (Grief as Journey): ‘We are definitely
on our own paths’, and ‘We are so far apart in how we
deal with our grief’. Other participants described negotiating grief with a partner in terms of a process (‘We were
each going through our own process of grief’, ‘I did not
understand his grief process’) or being on different levels
(‘We grieved on different levels’).
Others expressed the adaptation to the loss and their
grief reactions as being complementary with each other in
a positive way. For example: ‘We took turns with the grief
spells’ and ‘When he was strong, I was weak’. Other participants expressed the different grieving styles as being
in opposition with each other: ‘My husband had learned
to move forward and I still feel stuck’. Grief was also
expressed in terms of how one handles it: ‘My husband
still hasn’t dealt properly (or at all) with his death’, ‘We
dealt with his death in different ways’ and ‘He dealt with
it by staying busy around the house’. Overall, the differences in grieving were apparent for those couples who
worked together through their grief. However, they were
able to adjust to those differences and accept them for
what they were. Those who reported relational disharmony acknowledged the differences in grieving, but they
did not report an acceptance of those differences: ‘My
husband and I grieve differently. There has been resentment, anger and sadness because of this’ and ‘He could
not take that I cried and he eventually left’.
Communication skills
Very often, when talking about their relationships, the
bereaved would use the quality of communication as a
reference point. Communication about the death of a

child can be difficult when there is inconsistency in how
a couple wants to talk about the deceased child. The
decision about whether or not to discuss the topic of
death or the child was metaphorically reflected by several participants as ‘the elephant in the room’ or by one
participant’s expression, ‘We tiptoed around the issue’.
Others expressed the decision to talk or not in terms of
creating distance with the subject (‘We stay away from
talking about her’) and avoiding the topic (‘My husband
and I try to avoid talking about it’). Other participants
talked about the process of communicating about the
death in terms of obstacles, impediments or blockages:
‘Communication about the situation is difficult at times’
and ‘We were not able to talk’.
For the most part, effective communication between
couples was metaphorically described as being ‘open’. Participant statements that reflect this include: ‘We communicate more openly’, ‘We openly share thoughts, feelings
and ideas’, ‘Sometimes we have a heart-to-heart’, ‘We try
to keep an open channel of dialogue’, and (at the opposite
end) ‘We are still unable to talk openly with each other
about [deceased child’s] death’.

Discussion
This study examined participants’ use of metaphorical
language to describe the couple relationships following
parental bereavement. The death of a child is an unusually
traumatic life challenge. Often this type of stressor can
aggrandise and exacerbate pre-existing relational issues,
and the individual duress on each partner may result in
a re-evaluation of the relationship itself. The death itself
can function as a catalyst that may push the couple further
down the path of relational decline, or can bring a couple
closer.
The use of metaphor embodies the language used by
bereaved parents to describe the impact the loss of a child
has had on their dyadic relationships. Lakoff’s (1993)
theory of metaphor was the conceptual framework used
to understand how metaphor is seamlessly and intricately woven into our language. The present study results
are consistent with previous research, such that general
metaphorical tendencies proposed by Lakoff and Johnson
(2003), as well as relational metaphors proposed by Baxter (2003) and Owen (1985), were employed by bereaved
parents. The goal of the present study was not to prove
that metaphors are used in the language of the bereaved.
Rather, the intent was to understand the perceptual experiences of the bereaved by examining the metaphorical
thoughts revealed in their personal stories.
Relational trajectory
In the present study, the over-arching metaphors that
were used by bereaved parents described (a) the ‘event’ in
terms of the strain that it put on the relationship (Causes
Journal of Relationships Research

5

LAURA R. UMPHREY AND JOANNE CACCIATORE

as Forces), and (b) the change that resulted from the death
(Change as Motion).
The ‘Event’
The event, child death, was often described as the cause
of the strain on the relationship (e.g., One participant
stated: ‘The death was the eventual catalyst for the demise
of our relationship’). This was evident in language that
is consistent with Lakoff’s (1993) conception of an event
structure metaphor, such that the event produces changes
that are described in terms of movements (into or out of
bounded regions) and causes as forces. Participants in the
present study describe consequences of the event as ‘an
awful chapter in our lives’, ‘causing strain’, ‘being dealt a
terrible loss’, and ‘The death had such an impact on us’.
In each of these examples, the loss is described as consistent with Lakoff’s (1993) ‘difficulties are impediments to
motion metaphor’ (p. 220).
When describing their relationship with their partner,
the most dominant metaphor presented was the idea of
the Relationship as Motion. The relationship as motion
metaphor describes the relationship as an entity that is
moving and changing as a result of the child death. As
such, the motion generally was described as either coming
together or spreading apart. Both the direction (approach
vs. avoid) and force (magnitude of strength) were used
metaphorically. In addition to the general Relationship
as Motion metaphor, the present study supports previous
research conceptualising Relationships as Living Organisms (e.g., ‘Our relationship grew stronger’ and ‘We have
grown closer’) and Relationship as Journey (e.g., ‘We know
our relationship can weather any storm’ and ‘We found
our way back to each other’; Baxter, 2003; Owen 1985).
Negotiating grief as a couple
The study of grieving styles has been documented in the
literature (Doughty, 2009). In one model of bereavement, adaptive grieving styles in the form of cognitive, behavioural, and affective outlets were considered a
function of cultural and personality variables (Martin &
Doka, 2000). Grieving styles vary in terms of emotional
reporting and the expression of grief. Martin and Doka
(2000) suggest that a bipolar continuum exists, with intuitive grieving at one end and an instrumental pattern of
grieving at the other. Someone who enacts an intuitive
pattern is a more affective griever: internally they feel
extreme sadness and externally they convey their sadness
through tears and emotional expression. In other words,
they openly express their inner emotional state (Martin &
Doka, 2000). On the other hand, instrumental grievers
enact a more cognitive, behavioural, and problem-solving
style. They may feel discomfort when experiencing and
expressing emotions and prefer to be more task-oriented
in their coping style. Martin and Doka (2000) suggest
that people generally fall somewhere between these two
6

Journal of Relationships Research

extreme styles of grieving (‘blended style’), with one style
more dominant than the other.
In the present study, grief was generally described
metaphorically in terms of a difficult journey. This
metaphorical conceptualisation is consistent with previous research on grief following bereavement (Graves,
2009). When two people simultaneously negotiate this
journey, the perceptions and evaluation of a partner’s
grieving style can cause contention. In the present study,
participants reported either being accepting of their partner’s different grieving styles and acknowledged those differences (e.g., ‘I accept the fact that we grieve differently’)
or they recognised the difference and it was a source of
frustration for them (e.g., ‘My husband and I grieve differently. There has been resentment, anger and sadness
because of this.’). Intuitive grievers appeared to interpret
their partner’s instrumental grieving as insensitive or a
form of non-grieving (e.g., ‘He dealt with it by staying
busy around the house’). On the other hand, instrumental grievers appeared to perceive their partner’s intuitive
grieving with frustration or sense of helplessness such that
they didn’t know how to help them (e.g., ‘He could not
take that I cried and he eventually left’). The data from
this study suggest that while couples may grieve differently, the acknowledgement, acceptance and balancing of
those differences can serve to strengthen the relationship,
whereas the one-sided mindset of how grief should be
experienced appeared to be a contributing factor in the
dissolution of relationships.
Communication
In the present study, many couples talked about the quality of communication with their significant others and
expressed the struggle that existed in deciding if and when
to talk about the deceased child. This was expressed in
terms of the metaphorical description as the ‘elephant in
the room’. This metaphor is an expression that describes
an obvious truth or problem that is being avoided but
needs to be addressed. Just as an elephant in a room
would be impossible to miss, ignoring the elephant would
be clearly evading an imminent problem. This metaphor
most strongly reflects the dialectical struggle that parents
have in talking about their deceased child.
Many participants struggled with the dialectical tension of ‘openness–closedness’ with their partner when
they oscillated between the desire to discuss or avoid
conversations surrounding the deceased child. The theoretical framework that can best explain this tension is
relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 2004, 2006; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). A major tenet of the
theory is that communication is a process of constructing and enacting negotiated opposing relational
tendencies (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Baxter and Montgomery (1996) propose three major
internal dialectical tensions that are ongoing in personal

LOVE AND DEATH

relationships: connectedness–separateness, certainty–
uncertainty, and openness–closedness. ‘Connectedness–
separateness’ refers to the contradiction between an individual’s need for autonomy and their need to be connected with others. ‘Certainty–uncertainty’ refers to the
tension between the desire for novelty in the relationship
versus predictability. ‘Openness–closeness’ refers to the
amount and type of self-disclosure that is revealed.
The findings in the present study extend and support previous research on the particular dialectical tension of openness–closedness expressed by bereaved parents (Hooghe, Neimeyer, & Rober, 2012; Toller, 2005;
Toller & Braithwaite, 2009). The present research suggests that this dialectical struggle is present when bereaved
parents assess whether to communicate with each other
regarding their deceased child (e.g., ‘We don’t talk about
[deceased child] as much as I would like to’, and ‘We’ve
struggled because he doesn’t like to talk about [deceased
child]’). It appears that the management of this tension through conversational compromise may enhance
relational quality whereas complete topic avoidance may
promote relational disharmony.
Limitations

There are several limitations to this study worth noting. The first limitation is the composition of the sample itself. The majority of our respondents were Caucasian/White and well educated. In terms of gender bias,
there were significantly more bereaved mothers (n =
398, 94.8%) in this study compared to fathers (n =
20, 4.8%). It would be valuable to learn more about
grieving styles and how it impacts relationships from the
male’s perspective. Also, these data are an interpretation
of a couple’s functioning. It would be worthwhile to conduct interviews with bereaved couples in order to understand both perspectives on relational functioning. The
third limitation worth mentioning is the data collection
method. This study used an online survey methodology.
Although the written information gathered was valuable,
it would be worthwhile to conduct semi-structured interviews of couples to gather more in-depth, rich descriptions of metaphor and the relational dynamics that take
place. Despite the limitations, this study provided insight
into an area with very limited previous research, that
is, the ways in which couples metaphorically experience
and negotiate their relationship following the death of a
child.

to be an uncommon pathway to understanding this phenomenon, but this study supports the idea that it can
shed light on parental bereavement.
Hooghe, Neimeyer, and Rober (2011) argue the need
for a more complex understanding of couple communication during grief. Specifically, communication should
be examined through the lens of a dialogic perspective
(Hooghe, Neimeyer, & Rober, 2011). From a dialogical perspective, communication is conceptualised as the
co-construction of meaning in a communication event.
When ideal, the ‘listener’ refrains from telling the griever
how to feel or cope and trusts that dialogue will facilitate meaning and deepen understanding (Umphrey &
Cacciatore, 2011). It would be valuable to gain further
insight in how bereaved couples co-construct meaning
and how this meaning evolves over time.
Implications

These findings highlight the importance of understanding the complexity of parental bereavement on marital
adjustment. Examining the metaphorical representations
that bereaved parents use can help clinicians further
understand how parents perceive and experience relational changes. Metaphor serves several functions (Spaull,
Read, & Chantry, 2001). Metaphors can serve to help the
bereaved talk about their experience without having to
directly use language or actual stories of death and grief.
Metaphors can help the bereaved to tap directly into their
experiences and use language that closely captures their
sentiments. Metaphors serve as a way for bereaved to
facilitate and share meaning with others. Metaphors can
serve to underscore a prominent characteristic of a situation and help others recognise, understand, or relate
to a situation better (Rosenblatt, 2008). In the context of the therapist-client relationship, metaphor can
enhance that connection or relationship through shared,
mutual understanding. Metaphor may serve to facilitate
the process of grief work. When grief is conceptualised as
navigating awkward or unfamiliar terrain, the bereaved
may better understand why grief can seem difficult at
times and bearable other times (Spaull, Read, & Chantry,
2001). Although further research is needed in this area,
this study adds to the body of knowledge regarding conjugal relationship adjustment following the death of a
child.

References
Future Research

Although this study, in part, examined metaphors used to
explain couple adjustment, it would be valuable to further
understand the relational metaphors utilised by bereaved
parents regarding other familial relationships, including
living siblings of the deceased. Metaphor research appears

Baxter, L.A. (2003). Relationship metaphors. In Ponzetti (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of marriage and family (pp. 1309–
1312). New York: MacMillan.
Baxter, L.A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22.
Baxter, L.A. (2006). Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication. In D.O. Braithwaite &

Journal of Relationships Research

7

LAURA R. UMPHREY AND JOANNE CACCIATORE

L.A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 130–145). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and
dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
Cacciatore, J., Lacasse, J., Lietz, C., & McPherson, J. (in press).
A parent’s TEARS: Main results of the Traumatic Experiences
and Resiliency Study. OMEGA: Journal of Death & Dying.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory method: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13,
3–21.
Doughty, E.A. (2009). Investigating adaptive grieving styles: A
Delphi study. Death Studies, 33, 462–480.
Geary, J. (2011). I is an other: The secret life of metaphor and how it
shapes the way we see the world. New York: Harper Collins.
Gersie, A. (1992). Storymaking in bereavement: Dragons fight in the
meadow. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Gersie, A., & King, N. (1989). Storymaking in education and therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Graves, D. (2009). Talking with bereaved people: An approach for
structured and sensitive communication. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Hooghe, A., Neimeyer, R.A., & Rober, P. (2012). ‘Cycling around
an emotional core of sadness’: Emotion regulation in a couple
after the loss of a child. Qualitative Health Research, 22(9),
1220–1231. doi:10.1177/1049732312449209
Hooghe, A., Neimeyer, R.A., & Rober, P. (2011). The complexity
of couple communication in bereavement: An illustrative case
study. Death Studies, 35, 905–924.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In
A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lohan, J.A., & Murphy, S.A. (2006). Mental distress and family
functioning among married parents bereaved by a child’s sudden death. OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying, 52(4), 295–
305.
Martin, T.L., & Doka, K.J. (2000). Men don’t cry . . . women do:
Transcending gender stereotypes of grief. Philadelphia: BrunnerMazel.

8

Journal of Relationships Research

Metaphor [Def. 1]. (2012). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved
April 23, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/metaphor.
Oliva, A., Jiminez, J.M., & Parra, A. (2009). Protective effect of
supportive family relationships and the influence of stressful life
events on adolescent adjustment. Anxiety Stress Coping, 22(2),
137–152.
Owen, W.F. (1985). Thematic metaphors in relational communication: A conceptual framework. The Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 49, 1–13.
Owen, W.F. (1990). Delimiting relational metaphors. Communication Studies, 41(1), 35–53.
Rosenblatt, P.C. (2000). Parent grief: Narratives of loss and relationship. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Rosenblatt, P. (2008). Recovery following bereavement: Metaphor,
phenomenology, and culture. Death Studies, 32, 6–16.
Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of
qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394.
Schwartz-Borden, G. (1992). Metaphor: Visual aid in grief work.
OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying, 25(3), 239–248.
Spall, B., Read, S., & Chantry, D. (2001). Metaphor: Exploring
its origins and therapeutic use in death, dying and bereavement.
International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 7(7), 345–353.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology:
An overview. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toller, P.W. (2005). Negotiation of dialectical contradictions by
parents who have experienced the death of a child. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 33, 46–66.
Toller, P., & Braithwaite, D. (2009). Grieving together and apart:
Bereaved parents’ contradictions of marital interaction. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 37(3), 257–277.
Umphrey, L., & Cacciatore, J. (2011). Coping with the ultimate
deprivation: Narrative themes in a parental bereavement support
group. OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying, 63(2), 141–160.
VandeCreek, L. (1985). Building metaphors and extending models
of grief. The Hospice Journal, 1(2), 79–90.
Young, E. (2008). Figures of grief: Metaphors from a bereavement
writing group. OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying, 56(4),
359–367.