Szewel, Anatol

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

 92Z E S Z Y T Y N A U K O W E   UNIWERSYTETU RZESZOWSKIEGO  SERIA FILOLOGICZNA ZESZYT 6/2002   STUDIA ANGLICA RESOVIENSIA 1Anatol SZEWEL ANTHROPOCENTRIC METAPHOR IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A FRAGMENT OF CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS1 Metaphoric extension: general considerations The  major  aim  of  this  article  is  to  specify  the  cognitive  mechanisms  of anthropocentric  metaphor.  The  present  paper  also  attempts  to  spell  out  the general principles of conceptual analysis of the aforementioned metaphor in the political discourse. The changing paradigm of the modern linguistics has brought to life new approaches  to  metaphor  analysis.  The  traditional  research  into  metaphoricity mechanisms within the framework of interaction and thematisation theory (for a detailed  treatment  see  Telia  (1988),  Lipka  (1990),  Petrov  (1990))  has  been enriched  by  treating  metaphorical  expressions  as  manifestations  of  the  basic principles  of  conceptualisation  and  categorisation  of  the  world  within  the framework of cognitive linguistics. It has also been claimed that our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (see Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3)). The idea of conceptual picture of the world and its verbal expression has always been in the focus of semantic research. Thus the primary concern of a semanticist  is  the  specification  of  the  relationship  between  semantic  and conceptual analysis. The theory of universal language primes (Wierzbicka 1996) has  become  an  efficient  instrument  for  treating  the  semantic  system  of  a language. Moreover, meaning is regarded not as a part of absolute ‘language semantics’ but of individual conceptual systems, which reflect cognitive verbal and non-verbal experience of a person. What differs conceptual analysis from the semantic one is the degree of abstraction where the latter involves a lower degree of generalisation. This degree basically depends on the types of meaning being  1 I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Michał Post, the reviewer of the present article, for the critical comments and suggestive remarks on several points of primary importance.  93considered  –  lexical,  grammatical  or  textual.  Structuring  proves  to  be  an important part of conceptual analysis through creating models with definitively interlinked elements making up a kind of “microsystem”, which casts a new light on the inner, universal structure of language units. Metaphor is one of the most powerful tools for creating different types of “innovations” in language, eventually its development. Even those linguists who place metaphor outside the scope of linguistic description acknowledge that an understanding of metaphor is indispensable for a linguist. For instance, Sadock (1979:48) claims that figurative language is one of the most productive sources of linguistic change. Its nature is traditionally defined as expansion of one word’s meaning  onto  another  object  or  phenomenon  that  creates  similarity  between them. Recently, “metaphor” has acquired an instrumental sense being defined as a cross-domain mapping /from a source domain onto a target domain/ in the conceptual system (see Lakoff (1993:203)). The immediate consequence of the mentioned specification of metaphor is the assumption that in cognitive strategies the structure of such mapping can not then be simplified to a two component scheme “X is Y”, but should include their cross-reference points. For instance, the term “metaphorical expression” refers to  a  linguistic  expression  (a  word,  phrase  or  sentence)  that  is  the  surface realization of such a cross-domain mapping (Lakoff and Johnson (1980:203)). Simultaneously,  the  new  approach  presupposes  adequate  descriptive  devices, which  could  account  for  the  conceptual  processes  underlying  metaphoric extensions.  As  rightly  noted  by  Cienki  (1998:145),  the  metaphor  structure TARGET-DOMAIN IS SOURCE-DOMAIN: […]  should  not  be  assumed  as  cognitively  adequate  description  of  how  metaphors  are actually processed. However, until more is known about this, these sentence-like characterizations of metaphors serve as a convenient descriptive device […]. Interpreting metaphor as a conceptual phenomenon suggests both modelling and revealing the principles of its expansion, as well as investigation of the links appearing  in  the  process  of  metaphorisation.  Comparative  analysis  has contributed  greatly  to  the  understanding  of  the  aforementioned  issue  by interpreting the in-depth structure of metaphor through language universals and primitives. Another direction of research lies through the conceptual analysis of metaphor in different types of texts by spelling out both specific and universal characteristics including different bypassing elements. Political discourse as a particular kind of texts Metaphor  in  political  texts  appears  to  acquire  its  specific  characteristics, where the author’s subjective attitude manifests major influence of ideological,  94cultural and ethnic attitudes or stereotypes. Political texts have been previously analysed basically from the viewpoint of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (Corcoran 1979, Cohen 1983, Chilton 1985, Wodak 1991, Fiarclough 1995). As rightly mentioned by Corcoran (1979:145), the language of politics is rather the language about politics and its functioning does not differ from the languages used in other social spheres. The distinctive feature of the language of politics is that  being  manifested in  speeches  of  states people, commentaries,  news,  and articles it always bears a political colouring (Chilton 1985, Dant 1991). On the one hand, it represents the author’s ideological standpoint, on the other – it is aimed at conveying to the recipient some ideological tenets, i.e. it works as a tool in  social  techniques.  Quite  often,  the  author  remains  impersonal  and  is substituted  by  public  institutions,  mass  media  included.  The  above  factors predetermine the specific content of concepts in political discourse. Analysis of metaphor in political texts Concept, as a unit of description in cognitive analysis, appears to have at least two major aspects: logical and eidetic, where the first one, which is our primary  concern  in  this  paper,  reveals  the  patterns  of  its  in-depth  structure, defines its construing elements and models their interlinks. The central model interconnected with other models is a frame. The definition of frame used in the article is the one treating it as a data structure based on previous experience and reflecting knowledge of some stereotype situation and of the text describing this situation  (Minsky  1986).  This  definition  has  been  elaborated  on  in  different directions, particularly by highlighting in frame models the elements of general knowledge, deeply rooted cultural beliefs and practices, i.e. prototypes (Taylor 1995). Frame models were used by van Dijk (1988) in the research of political discourse, and in conceptual analysis of newspaper news in different languages. However,  the  heuristic  potential  of  frames  has  not  been  exhausted  yet. Conceptual analysis  has  acquired  new  means  after shaping  typical frames  as universal  models  of  information  processing  in  human  brain  (Zhabotinskaja 1999). Metaphorisation,  as  a  way  of  presenting  and  conveying  information  in political texts, being treated in terms of cognitive processes, exhibits the content of  a  message.  But  metaphor  is  not  purely  linguistic,  as  it  was  convincingly shown by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the whole of conceptual system in which we think and act is metaphoric by nature. This statement implies that sensory experience,  which  constitutes  the  basis  of  concrete  notions,  is  indirectly manifested in abstract notions through metaphoric extension. It should be noted that metaphoric usages in covering facts by newspapers explicitly or latently reveal certain evaluation.  95Anthropocentric metaphor in political discourse However, metaphorisation process is directly connected with the “presence” of  a  human-being  in  the  language  through  engaging  conceptual  sources associated  with  humans.  According  to  Lakoff  and  Johnson  (1980), anthropocentric  metaphors  are  most  common  in  languages,  as  they  allow  to express the broad experience of handling notions and names in terms of human characteristics, motives and actions. As has been mentioned, this article attempts to look into anthropocentric metaphors  in  the  language  of  politics  from  the  perspective  of  cognitive linguistics. The data are obtained from the articles published in The New York Times in 1999–2000 exploring conceptual fields of tenor and vehicle. I adopt the concept  of  typical  frames,  in  particular  object-centred  frame  model (Zhabotinskaja 1999), which maintains that the English language model-script illustrating the internal co-ordination of slots is as follows:    {SO[[(MUCH (of SUCH (SOMETHING)))EXISTS]SO]HERE-NOW]}. Tenor in political discourse is a complex formation, as here metaphoricity covers different areas and subjects of political relations. Hence, the conceptual field of tenor can be graphically presented as:  Figure 1 DOMAIN OF POLITICS |  Figure  1  represents  most  general  tenor  structure  and  can  be  “copied”  in subschemes  manifesting  a  definite  political  concept  (like  foreign  policy, economics, politics of a certain country, etc.). The scheme of vehicles correlating with tenor and laid down in conceptual field HUMAN is similar to the above-mentioned, as it is based on the development of object-centred frame. Here is a list of conceptual elements implemented in the present paper: SUCH       HERE         Has characteristics        Location of being                   \      /  POLITICS AS PHENOMENON  SOMEBODY/SOMETHING exists  being in certain state            /         \      EXISTS ACTING        TEMPORALITY        political activity            time of being  961. SUCH SOMETHING contains the following groups of concepts: 1.1. Being in a state of (concepts of physical conditions of human beings) 1.2. Having characteristics (concepts of emotional and intellectual domains) 2. SOMEBODY EXISTS DOING SOMETHING 2.1. Physical activities 2.2. Mental activity 2.3.  Social  activity  (concepts  of  certain  professions,  theatre  and  sport domains) Each  of  the  above  elements  acquires  in  the  data  material  its  conceptual specification. 1.1.  “Being  in  a  state”  is  expressed  through  concepts  “sickness”,  “health”, “weaning”.  SICKNESS  –  hard  social  problems  (trauma  of  dictatorship  is becoming clear, have done little to heal wounds of the Balkans, it is paralyzing them as citizens, this is a country of scars, Europe’s 20th-century convulsions), HEALTH  –  positive  changes  (prospects  are  healthier  than  they  appear), AWAKENING  –  transition  from  passive  to  active  state  (partial  amnesia  is followed by awakening), WEANING – becoming independent (before Eastern Germany weans itself from its dependence on money from the West). 1.2.  Emotional  characteristics  of  people.  Conceptual  metaphors  comprising vehicles of this group include emotions (positive or negative) and personal characteristics. EMOTIONS – “political system and its changes” – (euphoria and emotional reunion, grim communist reality, it seemed a far lovelier war, the  grim  scenes  of  destroyed  apartment  house).  PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (positive and negative) – “activity of political leaders, relations  between  states”  (she  was  taken  with  his  can-do  approach,  an oversized lust for the campaign trial, a friendly bridge may well become a reality, harsh lessons of this war). 2.  Person’s  activity  is  represented  through  a  combination  of  three  layers: physical, mental and social actions or activities. 2.1. Physical acts. Include concepts of gestures and physical efforts which are associated rather stereotypically. GESTURE – “attitude to political processes” (Soviet  leader  M.  Gorbachev  gives  nod  to  reunification),  BODILY MOVEMENT  –  “political  processes”  (idolised  heroes  of  Communism’s collapse  have  found  themselves  chewed  apart,  they  can  embrace  their neighbours,  Europe’s  attempt  to  muzzle  a  politician,  NATO  leaders  were trying to push a diplomatic track, Ukraine’s leadership is unwilling to grit its teeth and take the risk). 2.2. Mental processes. Vehicles of this group are rarely referred to and can be represented  by  concept  INTELLECTUAL  EFFORT  –  “understanding/non-understanding of reality, product of mental effort” (they are trying to decipher Russia’s new leader, NATO was a brainchild of a former trade-union leader).  972.3. Social life. Conceptual metaphors are numerous in this domain. They can be divided into several groups: 2.3.1. Professional activity, jobs – the speciality of each profession is associated with a definite political activity – (real American midwife of new organization). 2.3.2. Sports activity – COMPETITION “antagonisms” (countries have wrestled in  different  ways,  a runoff  between  two rivals),  GAME  “roles  in political processes” (refugees have been made pawns in power struggle, Klaus is still a vital  player  in  politics,  Ukraine  has  played  both  cat  and  mouse  with  the West). 2.3.3. Theatre/show. Frequent usages of this concept as a source domain can be explained  by  its  ability  to  represent  some  aspects  of  the  broader,  well-established cultural model. PLAYING A ROLE, A SHOW – “to function as, act according to a scheme” (too much the ironist to let himself be shoved into a role that better befits a soap opera; Clinton is playing a role, singing a song in an opera; he continues to act out the role of president). Discussion The research provides evidence sufficient to determine the content of the slots SOMEBODY/SOMETHING, SUCH, EXISTS/ACTING and the features which  compose  the  basis  for  comparison.  Analysis  of  metaphors  suggests applying  another  frame  type  –  associative  –  illustrating  the  relationship  of similarity mainly based on approximation of concepts in human thought:  SOMETHING 1 similar to SOMETHING 2  If SOMETHING 1 is a conceptual tenor and SOMETHING 2 – a conceptual vehicle, their similarity can be grounded on one or several quantors of object-centred frame. The links between quantors of tenor frame (SOMETHING 1) and quantors  of  vehicle  frame  (SOMETHING  2)  results  in  establishing  an  inter-frame network of various structures. The next stage in conceptual analysis of anthropocentric metaphor in political discourse is shaping the models of inter-frame  networks  in  the  structure  of  correlating  concepts.  This  seems  to  be  a challenging objective awaiting further investigation. At this stage I will confine myself  to  general  outlines  only.  It  is  common  knowledge  in  semantics  that metaphors  bring  certain  evaluative  “charge”  into  language  attaching  positive, negative or neutral connotations to the related facts. Conceptual  approach  allows  the  assumption  that  axiological  meaning  of metaphor  in  political  discourse  is  determined  by  the  choice  of  the  vehicle  98concepts and the structure of the engaged vehicle; for instance: POLITICAL ACTIVITY = THEATRE SHOW. The frames of vehicle concept and tenor can be referred to as SUCH SOMETHING. Their relationship can be patterned by associative frame SUCH SOMETHING 1 resembles SUCH SOMETHING 2. However, slot SUCH in the vehicle frame splits into a range of concepts: SUCH 1, SUCH 2, and SUCH 3. In our case the theatre show is: 1) artificial – imaginary life; 2) external – acting against ones convictions; 3) pre-determined – activity according to the given plot. Depending on the slot chosen as a predicate, the  metaphor  displays  variable  evaluative  connotations.  This  subject  matter deserves a closer look in further investigations. References Chilton, P.A. 1985. Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto Press. Cienki,  A.  1998.  “Straight:  An  image  schema  and  its  metaphorical  extension”  [in:]  Cognitive linguistics. 9. 2. 107–149. Cohen, B.C. 1983. The Press and Foreign Policy. Westport (Conn.): Greenwood Press. Corcoran, P.E. 1979. Political Language and Rhetoric. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dant, T. 1991. Knowledge, Ideology and Discourse: A Sociological Perspective. London, New York: Routledge. Fiarclough, N. 1995. Media Discourse. London, New York: E. Arnold. Lakoff, G. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor” [in:] A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lipka, L. 1990. An Outline of English Lexicology. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Minski, M. 1986. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. Petrov, V.V. 1990. „Metaphora: ot semantičeskikh predstavl’enij k kognitivnomu analizu” [in:] Voprosy jazykoznanija. 3. 135–146. Sadock  J.M.  1979.  “Figurative  speech  &  linguistics”  [in:]  A.  Ortony  (ed.).  Metaphor  and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 46–64. Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Telia,  V.N.  1988.  „Metaphora  kak  model’  smysloproizvodstva  i  jejo  ekspressivno-ocenočnaja funkcija” [in:] V.N. Telia (ed.). Metaphora v jazyke i tekste. Moscow: Nauka. 26–51. Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wodak, R. 1989. “The power of political jargon” [in:] R. Wodak (ed.). Language, Power and Idiology: Studies of Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelfia: John Benjamins. 137–164. Van Dijk, T.A. 1988. News as Discourse. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zhabotinskaja,  S.A.  1999.  „Kontseptual’nyj  analiz:  Tipy  frejmov”  [in:]  Visnyk  Čerkas’kogo universytetu. 11. 12–25.  

An Outline of English Lexicology.

Figurative speech &

Knowledge, Ideology and Discourse: A Sociological Perspective.

Kontseptual’nyj analiz: Tipy frejmov” [in:] Visnyk Čerkas’kogo universytetu.

Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.

Media Discourse.

Metaphora kak model’ smysloproizvodstva i jejo ekspressivno-ocenočnaja funkcija”

Metaphora: ot semantičeskikh predstavl’enij k kognitivnomu analizu” [in:] Voprosy jazykoznanija.

Metaphors We Live By.

News as Discourse.

Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto Press.

Political Language and Rhetoric.

Semantics. Primes and Universals.

The contemporary theory of metaphor”

The power of political jargon”

The Press and Foreign Policy. Westport (Conn.):

The Society of Mind.

Anthopocentric metapher in political discourse : a fragment of conceptual analysis

Anthopocentric metapher in political discourse : a fragment of conceptual analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main