1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The rising prominence of women in politics has sparked a growing interest in comparing the language of male and female politicians. Many researchers have explored whether gender in politics has had an impact on their metaphor styles. While these studies have been oriented qualitatively and have concentrated on the two-way interaction between metaphor and gender, the possibility that metaphor and gender may interact with other additional factors is largely overlooked. This article adopts a quantitatively oriented approach complemented with textual analysis to explore potential multiple-way interactions between ‘metaphor’, ‘gender’, ‘speech section’ and ‘political role’ in political discourse. By conducting a case study of metaphor use in Hong Kong political speeches, we found evidence of gendered metaphors and their variability according to politicians’ political roles and different rhetorical sections in their speeches.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
2020-05-01
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, K. L.
    (2009) Conceptual metaphors of family in political debates in the USA. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender, and conceptual metaphors (pp.184–206). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, K.
    (Ed.) (2009) Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2019) First Lady, Secretary of State and Presidential Candidate: A comparative study of the role-dependant use of metaphor in politics. InP. Julien, M. Reuchamps, & P. Thibodeau (Eds.), Variation in political metaphor (pp.13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.85.01ahr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.85.01ahr [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahrens, K., & Lee, S.
    (2009) Gender versus politics: When conceptual models collide in the U.S. Senate. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender, and conceptual metaphor (pp.62–82). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_4
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ahrens, K., & Zeng, H.
    (2017) Conceptualizing EDUCATION in Hong Kong and China. InR. E. Roxas. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 31) (pp.303–311). Cebu, Philippines: University of the Philippines. Retrieved fromwww.aclweb.org/anthology/Y17-1041
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Atkeson, L. R.
    (2003) Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1040–1061. 10.1111/1468‑2508.t01‑1‑00124
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00124 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baxter, J.
    (2010) The language of female leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230277915
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230277915 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K.
    (In press). Change in metaphorical framing over time: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cameron, D.
    (2006/2012) On language and sexual politics. New York and London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2005) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563–581. 10.1177/0957926506066345
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506066345 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) Metaphor and gender in British parliamentary debates. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.139–165). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_7 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R.
    (2004) Using WordNet and SUMO to determine source domains of conceptual metaphors. InD. H. Ji, L. K. Teng, & H. Wang (Eds.), Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5) (pp.91–98). Singapore: COLIPS. Retrieved fromcwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/churen/CLSW_Chung_final1.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Coates, J.
    (1987) Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differences in language. New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dodson, D. L.
    (2006) The impact of women in congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198296746.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0198296746.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fellbaum, C.
    (2005) WordNet and wordnets. InK. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp.665–670). Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Flannery, M. C.
    (2001) Quilting: A feminist metaphor for scientific inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(5), 628–645. 10.1177/107780040100700507
     https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700507 [Google Scholar]
  19. Field, A.
    (2013) Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gertzog, I. N.
    (1995) Congressional women: Their recruitment, integration, and behaviour (2nd ed.). New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilbert, N.
    (1993) Analyzing tabular data: Loglinear and logistic models for social researchers. London: UCL Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes, J.
    (1995) Women, men and politeness. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M.
    (Eds.) (2003) The handbook of language and gender (Vol.25). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756942
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jespersen, O.
    (1922) Language, its nature, origin and development. London: George Allen & Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones, J. J.
    (2016) Talk “Like a Man”: The linguistic styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013. Perspectives on Politics, 14(3), 625–642. 10.1017/S1537592716001092
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716001092 [Google Scholar]
  26. Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T.
    (2014) The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Koller, V.
    (2004a) Businesswomen and war metaphors: ‘possessive, jealous and pugnacious’?Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(1), 3–22. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2004.00249.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00249.x [Google Scholar]
  28. (2004b) Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511286
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511286 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.202–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1996/2002) Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980/2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33(1), 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lim, E. T.
    (2009) Gendered metaphors of women in power: The case of Hillary Clinton as madonna, unruly woman, bitch and witch. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.254–269). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_12 [Google Scholar]
  34. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Niles, I., & Pease, A.
    (2001) Towards a standard upper ontology. InC. Welty, & B. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001) (pp.2–9). New York: ACM.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Philip, G.
    (2009) Non una donna in politica, ma una donna politica: Women’s political language in an Italian context. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.83–111). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_5
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Semino, E., & Koller, V.
    (2009) Metaphor, politics and gender: A case study from Italy. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.36–61). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_3
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Steen, G. J., Reijnierse, W. G., & Burgers, C.
    (2014) When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PloS ONE, 9(12), e113536. 10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113536 [Google Scholar]
  40. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stefanowitsch, A., & Goschler, J.
    (2009) Sex differences in the usage of spatial metaphors: A case study of political language. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.166–183). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_8
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_8 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S.
    (2007) Using multivariate statistics. New York: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Talbot, M.
    (2003) Gender stereotypes: Reproduction and challenge. InJ. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.468–486). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756942.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tay, D.
    (2015) Metaphor in case study articles on Chinese university counseling service websites. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 28–56. 10.1075/cld.6.1.02tay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.6.1.02tay [Google Scholar]
  45. (2017) Quantitative metaphor usage patterns in Chinese psychotherapy talk. Communication & Medicine, 14(1), 51–68. 10.1558/cam.27688
     https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.27688 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tenorio, E. H.
    (2009) The metaphorical construction of Ireland. InK. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp.112–136). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_6
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS ONE, 6(2), e16782. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS ONE, 8(1), e52961. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1997) What is political discourse analysis?InJ. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp.11–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2002) Political discourse and political cognition. InP. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp.203–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij [Google Scholar]
  51. Velasco-Sacristán, M. S.
    (2005) A critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to advertising gender metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 219–252. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.219
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilson, F.
    (1992) Language, technology, gender, and power. Human Relations, 45(9), 883–904. 10.1177/001872679204500902
     https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500902 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R.
    (2013) Mass media research: An introduction (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, J.
    (2013) The politics of huanghua: Gender, metaphors, and privatization in China. Language & Communication, 33(1), 61–68. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.08.003 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
Loading
A multifactorial analysis of metaphors in political discourse
Metaphor and the Social World 10, 141 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19016.zen
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): gender; metaphor; multifactorial analysis; political discourse

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error