1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The peace Treaty of Trianon, which was signed by the representatives of Hungary and the Allies in 1920, caused substantial economic, political and social changes in the life of the Hungarian nation. The paper explores how far these changes have been conceptualized by conceptual metaphors in Hungarian public discourse from 1920 to the present day. Specifically, it looks at whether there is a conventionalized metaphoric conceptual system concerning the treaty, which began (or was current) in 1920 and has been developing for almost a hundred years.

The paper applies a qualitative approach to a small corpus of written texts. The corpus contains twenty texts, which are taken from four different categories of public discourse (political, academic, informative and media) and four time periods (1920–1945, 1945–1990, 1990–2010, and 2010–2015).

The paper concludes that, within the public discourse on the consequences of the Trianon peace treaty, the same metaphors have fundamentally survived over nine decades. This conceptual history of metaphors suggests heavy conventionalization, which can play a crucial role in the survival of a certain mental image of the nation and in maintaining negative emotions about the treaty. It also suggests that the Trianon frame is still an essential part of Hungarian national identity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.05put
2016-10-14
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cameron, L
    (2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. doi: 10.1080/10926480902830821
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821 [Google Scholar]
  2. De Cillia, R. , Reisigl, M. , & Wodak, R
    (1999) The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–172. doi: 10.1177/0957926599010002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Deignan, A
    (2012) Figurative language in discourse. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.437–463). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dénes, I.Z
    (2001) Európai mintakövetés - nemzeti öncélúság. Értékvilág és identitáskeresés a 19-20. századi Magyarországon. Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Framenet project
  6. Grady, J.E
    (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. Correlation vs resemblance. In R.W. Gibbs Jr & G.J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  7. Goatly, A
    (2007) Washing the brain – Metaphor and hidden ideology: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gyáni, G
    (2012) Nemzet, kollektív emlékezet és public history. Történelmi Szemle, 54(3), 357–375.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnson, M
    (1987) The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kiss, Gy. Cs
    (2002) Hungarológia és nemzeti mítoszok. Korunk, 13(11), 90–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kövecses, Z
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2011) Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp.23–39). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) Where metaphors come from Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. . (Manuscript). Conceptual metaphor theory.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Musolff, A
    (2004) Metaphor and conceptual evolution. Metaphoric.de 2004(7). www.metaphorik.de/de/journal/07/metaphor-and-conceptual-evolution.html
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2010a) Metaphor in discourse history. In M.E. Winters , H. Tissari , & K. Allah (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp.70–93). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010b) Metaphor, nation and the holocaust: The concept of the body politic. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) The heart of Europe. Synchronic variation and historical trajectories of a political metaphor. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Speaking of Europe: Approaches to complexity in European political discourse (pp.135–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.49.07mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.49.07mus [Google Scholar]
  21. Semino, E
    (2009) Metaphor and situational motivation. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics, 14, 221–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Steen, G.J. , Dorst, A.G. , Herrmann, J.B. , Kaal, A. , & Krennmayr, T
    (2010) Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 757–788. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2010.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.024 [Google Scholar]
  24. Talmy, L
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. van Dijk, T.A
    (2009) Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511575273
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273 [Google Scholar]
  26. van Leeuwen, T
    (2008) Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Zeidler, M
    (2002) A magyar irredenta kultusz a két világháború között. Budapest: Teleki László Alpítvány.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Zinken, J. , Hellsten, I. , & Nerlich, B
    (2008) Discourse metaphors. In R.M. Frank , R. Dirven , T. Ziemke , & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol. II. Sociocultural situatedness (pp.363–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Zinken, J
    (2003) Ideological imagination: Intertextual and correlational metaphors in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 14(4), 507–523. doi: 10.1177/0957926503014004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Act No 45
    2010On the testimony for national cohesion. Retrieved fromwww.vajma.info/docs/Nemzeti-osszetartozas-torveny.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Balsai, I
    (2002) Az Országgyűlés 6. ülésnapja, 2002. június 4-én, kedden. Retrieved fromwww.parlament.hu/naplo37/006/n006_008.htm
  32. Bernáth, Z
    (2010) Vádemelés az összeomlott békerendszer felett, a romok alól. Budapest: Heraldika Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Bethlen, I
    (1933) Angliai előadásai. Budapest: Genius.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Duray, M
    (2008) A trianoni ítélet három nemzedék távlatából. In E. Raffay & Sz. Archimédesz (Eds.), Trianon átírta Európát (pp.29–38). Budapest: Trianon Kutatóintézet.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gratz, G
    (1935) A forradalmak kora. Magyarország története 1918–1920. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Juhász, Gy
    (1969) Magyarország külpolitikája 1919–1945. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Király, Z
    (1989) Az Országgyűlés 41. ülése, 1989. március 10-én, pénteken. In Az országgyűlés naplója , Vol. 3 (pp.3494–3498). Budapest.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nagy, L. Zs
    (1987) Trianon a magyar társadalom tudatában. Századvég, 3, 5–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lángi, A.M
    (1998) Nyilatkozatok a trianoni békeparancs ellen. In D. Kiss (Ed.), Trianon kalendárium (pp.62–69). Budapest: Trianon Társaság.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lőkkös, J
    (2010) Trianonról a 21. század elején. Budapest: Püski Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Molnár, E
    (Ed.) (1964) Magyarország története. 2. kötet. Budapest: Gondolat Könyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ottlik, L
    (1928) Új Hungária felé. Magyar Szemle, 4(1), 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pelczné Gáll, I
    (2011) Ünnepi beszéd a Nemzeti Összetartozás Napjának tiszteletére rendezett kopjafa avatáson Bükkaranyoson. www.pgi.hu/pgi/images/stories/media/2011_junius/nn%20bukkaranyos.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Raffay, E
    (1995) A magyar tragédia: Trianon 75 éve. Budapest: Püski Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1999) A szétszórtság nemzete. In P. Lakatos (Ed.), Bűnünk és bajunk Trianon (pp.7–15). Miskolc: Felsőmagyarország Kiadó,
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ránki, Gy
    (Ed.) (1984) Magyarország története tíz kötetben. 1/8 kötet. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Romsics, I
    (2001) A trianoni békeszerződés. Budapest: Osiris.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Szekfű, Gy
    (1934) Három nemzedék és ami utána következik. Budapest: Egyetemi Nyomda.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zakariás, G.S
    (1933) A revízió útja. Budapest: Erdélyi Férfiak Egyesülete.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.05put
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