1887
Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the roles of the cognitive mechanisms of conceptual metaphor and performativity in political policy by conducting a case study on the South Korean government’s Sunshine Policy toward North Korea from 1998 to 2008. This study contends that the policy is metaphorically motivated by an Aesop’s fable, , a narrative whose entailments have significant implications for the policy. It also systematically accounts for the policy’s performative characteristic, focusing on the fact that the policy makers intended to map the causal relationship of the narrative onto a real-world relationship, even though the real-world causal relationship must be based on the unknown result of the policy. Lastly, this paper discusses theoretical implications of the performativity entangled with the conceptual metaphors in the policy; the real-world concept is usually what limits the mapping possibilities, but in this case, the narrative structure of the fable determines the construal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00035.kwo
2019-08-20
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Butler, J.
    (1988) Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531. 10.2307/3207893
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893 [Google Scholar]
  2. Deignan, A., & Armstrong, S.
    (2015) Payback and punishment. InJ. B. Herrmann & T. B. Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp.79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.4.04dei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.4.04dei [Google Scholar]
  3. de Man, P.
    (1996) The concept of irony. InA. Warminski (Ed.), Aesthetic ideology (pp.163–184). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Derrida, J.
    (2002) Without alibi. Trans. byP. Kamuf. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Feldman, J.
    (2006) From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Fish, S. E.
    (1976) How to do things with Austin and Searle: Speech act theory and literary criticism. Modern Language Notes, 91, 983–1025.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
    (2005) The brain’s concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lakoff, G.
    (1991) Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Paper presented at theAlumni House on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, January 30.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1996) Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2006a) Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision. New York: Tides Center/Rockridge Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006b) Whose freedom?: The battle over America’s most important idea. New York: Picador.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006c) [1993] The contemporary theory of metaphor. InD. Geeraerts, (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp.185–238). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.185
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.185 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008a) The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain. New York: Viking Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008b) The neural theory of metaphor. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.17–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R.
    (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Moon, C. I.
    (2002) The Sunshine Policy and the Korean summit: Assessments and prospects. InT. Akaha (Ed.), The future of North Korea (pp.26–46). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Schwartz, A.
    (1992) Contested concepts in cognitive social science. Unpublished thesis. Berkeley: University of California.
  19. Searle, J.
    (1989) How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–558. 10.1007/BF00627773
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sweetser, E.
    (2000) Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3), 305–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Todd, Z., & Low, G.
    (2010) A selective survey of research practive in published studies using metaphor analysis. InL. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp.26–41). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00035.kwo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00035.kwo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual mapping , conceptual metaphor , performativity and the Sunshine Policy
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