oa democracy in Taiwanese presidential inaugural addresses

References

1. Ahrens, Kathleen, and Menghan Jiang
   2020 Source domain verification using corpus-based tools. Metaphor and Symbol35.1:43–55. 10.1080/10926488.2020.1712783
   https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1712783 [Google Scholar]
2. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michal Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak
   2008 A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19.3:273–306. 10.1177/0957926508088962
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
3. Burgers, Christian
   2016 Conceptualizing change in communication through metaphor. Journal of Communication66.2:250–265. 10.1111/jcom.12211
   https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12211 [Google Scholar]
4. Burgers, Christian, and Kathleen Ahrens
   2020 Change in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics41.2:260–279. 10.1093/applin/amy055
   https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy055 [Google Scholar]
5. Chao, Linda, and Ramon H. Myers
   1994 The first Chinese democracy: Political development of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 1986–1994. Asian Survey34.3:213–230. 10.2307/2644981
   https://doi.org/10.2307/2644981 [Google Scholar]
6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
   2019 Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake?Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28768‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28768-9 [Google Scholar]
7. Cibulskienė, Jurga
   2012 The development of the journey metaphor in political discourse: Time-specific changes. Metaphor and the Social World2.2:131–153. 10.1075/msw.2.2.01cib
   https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.2.2.01cib [Google Scholar]
8. Dorst, Aletta G., and Anna G. Kaal
   2012 Metaphor in discourse: Beyond the boundaries of MIP. Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication, ed. byFiona MacArthur, José Luis Oncins-Martínez, Manuel Sánchez-García and Ana María Piquer-Píriz, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hcp.38.06dor
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.38.06dor [Google Scholar]
9. Dreyfuss, Caroline
   2015 Taiwanese student sit-in for democratic reform (Wild Lily Movement) 1990. RetrievedJune 27, 2022, fromhttps://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fairclough, Norman
    1989 Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fairclough, Norman
    2001 Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Goatly, Andrew
    2007 Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology, vol.231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
13. Heywood, Andrew
    2017 Political Ideologies: An Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑60604‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60604-4 [Google Scholar]
14. Hood, Steven J.
    2020 The Kuomintang and the Democratization of Taiwan. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429312168
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429312168 [Google Scholar]
15. Huang, Chu-Ren, and Shu-Kai Hsieh
    2010 Infrastructure for Cross-lingual Knowledge Representation – Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3). RetrievedMarch 10, 2021, fromhttps://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn/
    [Google Scholar]
16. Jacobs, J. Bruce
    2012 Democratizing Taiwan. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004225909
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004225909 [Google Scholar]
17. Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrž, and David Tugwell
    2004 The sketch engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, ed. byWilliams Geoffrey and Sandra Vessier, 105–116.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography11:7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
19. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2015 Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
20. Lakoff, George
    2008 The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lakoff, George
    2014 The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Lakoff, George
    2016 Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226411323.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226411323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Liu, Nancy
    2011 Taiwanese Student Sit-in for Democratic Reform (Wild Lily Movement) 1990. RetrievedJune 27, 2022, fromhttps://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
    [Google Scholar]
24. Lu, Louis Wei-Lun, and Kathleen Ahrens
    2008 Ideological influence on building metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse & Society19.3:383–408. 10.1177/0957926508088966
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088966 [Google Scholar]
25. Musolff, Andreas
    2006 Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol21.1:23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
26. Musolff, Andreas
    2014 Metaphor in the discourse-historical approach. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 45–66. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Musolff, Andreas
    2016 Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Musolff, Andreas
    2017 Truths, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics16.5:641–657. 10.1075/jlp.16033.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16033.mus [Google Scholar]
29. Niles, Ian, and Adam Pease
    2001 Towards a standard upper ontology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, vol. 2001, ed. byGuarino Nicola, Barry Smith, and Christopher Welty, 2–9. RetrievedMarch 10, 2021, fromhttps://www.ontologyportal.org/Pubs.html. 10.1145/505168.505170
    https://doi.org/10.1145/505168.505170 [Google Scholar]
30. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group 2007 MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol22.1:1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
31. Reisigl, Martin
    2008 Rhetoric of political speeches. Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, vol.41, ed. byRuth Wodak and Veronika Koller, 243–270. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198980.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198980.3.243 [Google Scholar]
32. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2009 The discourse-historical approach (DHA). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Reisigl, Martin
    2017 The discourse-historical approach. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byJohn Flowerdew and John E. Richardson, 44–59. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315739342‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-4 [Google Scholar]
34. Roy, Denny
    2003 Taiwan: A Political History. New York: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Tryntje Pasma
    2010 A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU, vol.141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
36. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Wachman, Alan. M.
    1994 Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. Armonk, New York, and London: M.E. Sharpe.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Wei, Jennifer M., and Ren-feng Duann
    2019 Who are we?: Contesting meanings in the speeches of national leaders in Taiwan during the authoritarian period. Journal of Language and Politics18.5:760–781. 10.1075/jlp.17069.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17069.wei [Google Scholar]
39. Wodak, Ruth
    1999 Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language & Social Interaction32.1–2:185–193. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_22
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_22 [Google Scholar]
40. Wodak, Ruth
    2001 The discourse-historical approach. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    2009 Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis21:1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Wodak, Ruth, and Salomi Boukala
    2015 European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics14.1:87–109. 10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod [Google Scholar]
43. Wong, Joseph
    2001 Dynamic democratization in Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary China10.27:339–362. 10.1080/10670560120045823
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560120045823 [Google Scholar]
44. Zeng, Winnie Huiheng, Christian Burgers, and Kathleen Ahrens
    2021 Framing metaphor use over time: ‘Free Economy’ metaphors in Hong Kong political discourse (1997–2017). Lingua2521:102955. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102955
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102955 [Google Scholar]