1887
Volume 9, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The complex and abstract character of political discourse makes it difficult to be understood directly by ordinary people. Assuming that use of metaphor could make political language easier to comprehend, more and more scholars began to focus on the study of metaphor in political discourse. However, most of these studies paid only attention to the contrastive study of single metaphor phenomena, while diachronic studies of metaphors still remained few.

The present paper attempts to make a diachronic analysis of metaphor clusters in American and Chinese political discourse. The data employed are American and Chinese leaders’ political speeches, addressed to university students; the Chinese corpus contains 119021 characters, while the American corpus includes 118805 words. The research was implemented over three periods, namely before 1900, from 1900 to 2010, and from 2010 up to now (when the new term “metaphor cluster” was introduced to study the clustering phenomena of metaphor in different periods). In addition, both qualitative analysis and qualitative analysis were employed; the linguistic analysis tool Wmatrix and MIPVU procedures were adopted to identify metaphor clusters, thereby remedying the shortcomings of traditional methods which identify metaphor through researchers’ intuition and perception. Qualitative analysis was used to conduct a contrastive analysis of dominant metaphor clusters and how they tend to be used by the lecturers, both in the American and the Chinese corpuses.

The data analysis shows that metaphor clusters abound in American and Chinese leaders’ political speeches in universities. Generally speaking, Chinese leaders adopt more metaphor clusters than do their American counterparts. Similar metaphor clusters in both data are: journey, family, and building. Circle and art metaphor clusters are unique to the Chinese data, while religion and drama metaphor clusters only occur in the American data. Before 1990, leaders adopted few metaphor clusters both in America and in China; the two decades from 1990 to 2010 witnessed a peak season of employing metaphor clusters in both Chinese and American leaders’ speeches, whereas after 2010, the usage of metaphor clusters in Chinese data ushered in a new stage of development, with a multitude of new metaphorical expressions having cultural connotations. The results reveal that the differences in the usage of metaphor clusters are mainly due to the various ideologies and cultural backgrounds of the two countries. In addition, our analysis also shows that the employment of metaphor clusters in political discourse could lead the audiences’ direction of thinking, reduce the audiences’ comprehensive burden, and arouse the audiences’ emotions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16055.sun
2019-01-10
2019-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cameron, Lynne
    2003Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cameron, Lynne, & Graham Low
    2004 Figurative variation in episodes of educational talk and text. European Journal of English Studies8(3): 355–373. 10.1080/1382557042000277430
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1382557042000277430 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cameron, Lynne, & Juurp Stelma
    2004 Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics1(2): 107–136. 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  4. Candlin, Chris
    1987 What happens when applied linguistics goes critical?InMichael Halliday, John Gibbons & Howard Nicholas (eds.). Learning, Keeping and Using Language: Selected Papers from the 8th World Congress of Applied Linguistics461–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.lkul2.32can
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lkul2.32can [Google Scholar]
  5. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2005Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  7. Corts, Daniel , & Kristina Meyers
    2002 Conceptual clusters in figurative language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research31(4): 391–408. 10.1023/A:1019521809019
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019521809019 [Google Scholar]
  8. Corts, Daniel , & Howard Pollio
    1999 Spontaneous production of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Metaphor and Symbol14(2): 81–100. 10.1207/s15327868ms1402_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1402_1 [Google Scholar]
  9. David, Shepherd
    1996 Nature as political metaphor: four examples of Utopian literature, 1914–1930. Colloquia Germanica29(3): 191–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gozzi, Jr., Raymond
    1992 LIFE IS A DRAMA – The TV generation’s metaphor. A Review of General Semantics49(3): 345–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Graber, Doris
    1993 Political communication: Scope, progress, promise. InAda Finifter (Ed.), The State of the Discipline II. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 305–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gustavsson, Nora
    1991 The war metaphor: A threat to vulnerable populations. Social Work36(4): 277–278. 10.1093/sw/36.4.277
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/36.4.277 [Google Scholar]
  13. Howe, Nicholas
    1988 Metaphor in contemporary American political discourse. Metaphor and Symbol3(2): 87–104. 10.1207/s15327868ms0302_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0302_2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kimmel, Michael
    2010 Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics42: 97–115. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017 [Google Scholar]
  15. Koller, Veronika
    2003 Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. Metaphorik.de5: 115–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. InAndrew Ortony (Ed), Metaphor and Thought2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–251. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1996Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Low, Graham
    1997 A Celebration of Squid Sandwiches: Figurative Language and the Management of (Non-Core) Academic Text. Unpublished project report, University of York. available online: www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/Staff/gdl_Celebration.pdf
  21. Mio, Jeffery
    1997 Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol12(2): 113–133. 10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Moore, Brian
    1985Cold Heaven. London: Triad Panther Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Perinbanayagam, Robert
    1982 Dramas, metaphors, and structures. Symbolic Interaction5(2): 259–276. 10.1525/si.1982.5.2.259
    https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1982.5.2.259 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Read, Stephen, Ian Cesa, David Jones & Nancy Collins
    1990 When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity5(3): 125–149. 10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Shepherd, David
    1996 Nature as political metaphor: four examples of Utopian literature, 1914–1930. Colloquia Germanica29(3): 191–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Steen, Gerard, Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Trijntje Pasma
    2010MIPVU: A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  28. Xia, Zhengnong
    1999Cihai. Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16055.sun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16055.sun
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