1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097

Abstract

Abstract

This article compares diachronic and cross-linguistic uses of source domains for framing the target domain of in governmental discourses under the presidencies of Bill Clinton, Jiang Zemin, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping. Taking a socio-cognitive approach, we examine trade metaphor use across time periods (1993–1997 vs. 2017–2021) and languages (American English vs. Mandarin Chinese) in nationally dominant discourses. At the micro-level of trade corpora, both the quantitative and qualitative analyses show that the higher-level source domains (e.g., ) and their (re)constructed lower-level source domains (e.g., vs. ) are semantic fields whose use varies with discourse contexts. The usages of the distinct lower-level source domains highlight divergent cognitive forms of trade ideologies, which are embedded in dynamic political structures; they help reveal the implicit trade relations and ideological motivations at the macro-level of trade discourse contexts. The macro-level analyses reveal that nationally dominant discourses are constructed around domestic and global interests, and that power relations are (re)constructed diachronically and challenged transnationally through dominant discursive practices.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23004.tan
2023-09-08
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/msw.23004.tan.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23004.tan&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahrens, K., & Jiang, M.
    (2020) Source domain verification using corpus-based tools. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(1), 43–55. 10.1080/10926488.2020.1712783
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1712783 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boers, F.
    (1999) When a bodily source domain becomes prominent. InG. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.47–56). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.04boe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.04boe [Google Scholar]
  3. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
    (1997) A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse. InW.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.115–130). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.10boe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.10boe [Google Scholar]
  4. Boylan, M., McBeath, J., & Wang, B.
    (2021) US–China relations: Nationalism, the trade war, and COVID-19. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 14(1), 23–40. 10.1007/s40647‑020‑00302‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-020-00302-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K.
    (2020) Change in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of state of the union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 260–279. 10.1093/applin/amy055
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy055 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cai, D., & Deignan, A.
    (2019) Metaphors and evaluation in popular economic discourse on trade wars. InI. Ferrando (Ed.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse (pp.57–78). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110629460‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110629460-004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Charteris-Black, J., & Ennis, T.
    (2001) A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 249–266. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(00)00009‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00009-0 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, J., & Musolff, A.
    (2003) ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22(2), 153–176. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00012‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00012-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N.
    (1999) Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, S., Huang, C., & Ahrens, K.
    (2003) Economy is a transportation-device contrastive representation of source domain knowledge in English and Chinese. Proceedings of International Conference Natural Language Processing, 790–796.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Landtsheer, C.
    (2015) Media rhetoric plays the market. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 205–222. 10.1075/msw.5.2.02del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.02del [Google Scholar]
  12. Dumbrell, J.
    (2005) Evaluating the foreign policy of President Clinton, or Bill Clinton: Between the Bushes. British Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hart, C.
    (2008) Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies, 5(2), 91–106. 10.1080/17405900801990058
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopewell, K.
    (2020) Trump & trade: The crisis in the multilateral trading system. New Political Economy, 26(2), 271–282. 10.1080/13563467.2020.1841135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1841135 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) The death of dead metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(2), 143–147. 10.1207/s15327868ms0202_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0202_5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980/2003) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Y., & Tay, D.
    (2023) Modelability of war metaphors across time in cross-national COVID-19 news translation: An insight into ideology manipulation. Lingua, 2861, 103490. 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103490
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103490 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ming, L.
    (2015) Scapegoat or manipulated victim? Metaphorical representations of the Sino-US currency dispute in Chinese and American financial news. Text & Talk, 35(3). 10.1515/text‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Negro, I.
    (2016) The human being as the target of crisis metaphors in English, Spanish and French. Metaphor and the Social World, 6(2), 177–204. 10.1075/msw.6.2.01neg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.6.2.01neg [Google Scholar]
  21. Ng, M.
    (1995) Are rights culture-bound?InM. Davis (Ed.), Human rights and Chinese values: Legal, philosophical, and political perspectives (pp.59–71). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. O’Mara-Shimek, M., Guillén-Parra, M., & Ortega-Larrea, A.
    (2015) Stop the bleeding or weather the storm? Crisis solution marketing and the ideological use of metaphor in online financial reporting of the stock market crash of 2008 at the New York Stock Exchange. Discourse & Communication, 9(1), 103–123. 10.1177/1750481314556047
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314556047 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rojo, A., & Orts, M.
    (2010) Metaphorical pattern analysis in financial texts: Framing the crisis in positive or negative metaphorical terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3300–3313. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Semino, E.
    (2002) A sturdy baby or a derailing train? Metaphorical representations of the euro in British and Italian newspapers. Text & Talk, 22(1), 107–139. 10.1515/text.2002.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  26. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) HAPPINESS in English and German: A metaphorical-pattern analysis. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.137–149). CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Tan, X.
    (2023) Static and dynamic metaphoricity in U.S.-China trade discourse: A transdisciplinary perspective. LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Tay, D.
    (2021) Automated lexical and time series modelling for critical discourse research: A case study of Hong Kong protest editorials. Lingua, 2551, 103056. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103056
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103056 [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Dijk, T.
    (1993) Elite discourse and racism. Sage. 10.4135/9781483326184
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326184 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) Discourse-cognition-society: Current state and prospects of the socio-cognitive approach to discourse. InC. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary studies in critical discourse analysis (pp.123–148). Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2015) Critical discourse analysis. InD. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.466–485). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584194.ch22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016) Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. InR. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.62–86). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, X., & Wang, Z.
    (2021) Analysis of the characteristics of metaphors in news reviews on the China-US trade war. InM. Liu, K. C., & Q. Su (Eds.), CLSW 2020: Chinese lexical semantics (pp.253–267). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑81197‑6_22
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81197-6_22 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, Z.
    (2019) Understanding Trump’s trade policy with China: International pressures meet domestic politics. Pacific Focus, 34(3), 376–407. 10.1111/pafo.12148
    https://doi.org/10.1111/pafo.12148 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wendt, A.
    (1999) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183 [Google Scholar]
  36. White, M.
    (2003) Metaphor and economics: The case of growth. English for Specific Purposes, 22(2), 131–151. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00006-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Yu, N.
    (2011) Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera: A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3), 595–628. 10.1515/cogl.2011.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.023 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23004.tan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.23004.tan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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