Cognitive pragmatics of American presidential debates: a case for economic metaphors
Abstract
This article focuses on cognitive-pragmatic properties of conceptual metaphors of ECONOMY in the 21st century American presidential campaigns. In this paper, we aim to elaborate the models of metaphoric conceptualization of ECONOMY, state their functions in terms of discourse strategies, and describe their impact on the opponents and the audience. This research is underpinned by conceptual metaphor theories and ideas of cognitive pragmatics, which postulates the unity of cognitive and communicative aspects of discourse. The benefits of this integrative cognitive-pragmatic approach are in the fact that it can consequently explicate the meaning of speaker’s message and the expected impact of their discourse on the audience. For this aim, we stress the persuasive and manipulative nature of American presidential debates as a mass-media mediated genre of political discourse. Adopting a cognitive-pragmatic perspective on presidential debates, we claim that conceptual metaphors of economy constitute time and ideology specific conceptual models; their dominant functions are persuasive, informative, and manipulative. In the discourse of the 21st century presidential debates, we distinguish seven leading models of conceptual metaphors of economy, common for both republican and democratic candidates. The choice of discourse strategies of debate participants depends upon the candidates’ intentions while their impact on the opponent and the audience is influenced by meta-communicative issues of candidates’ communicative behavior and (im)politeness strategies in particular. The 21st century presidential debates are characterized by the abundance of discourse strategies of aggression and impoliteness.
Downloads
References
Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction. The Cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective (pp. 1–25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chouliaraki, L. (2000). Political discourse in the news: Democratizing responsibility or aestheticizing politics? Discourse & Society, 11(3), 293–314. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42888319
Collins English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blending and Coded meaning: Literal and Figurative Meaning in Cognitive Semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536.
Culpeper, J. Impoliteness: using and understanding the language of offence. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/bibliography.htm
Deignan, A. (2012). Figurative language in discourse. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 437–462). Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dijk, T.A. van. (2008). Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 63–85). London: Sage Publishing.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: New York Basic Books.
Feldman, L., & Price, V. (2008). Confusion or enlightenment? How exposure to disagreement moderates the effects of political discussion and media use on candidate knowledge. Communication Research, 35(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207309362 48
Foolen, A. (2019). Quo vadis pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 39–46.
Goncharova, T. (2009). Lingvisticheski orientirovannye metody issledovanija politicheskogo diskursa [Linguistically oriented methods of political discourse research]. Linguistica Bidgostiana, 6, 51–63 (in Russian).
Goncharova, T. (2010). Lingvisticheskij analiz argumentacii v politicheskom dialoge [Linguistical analysis of political dialog argumentation]. Linguistica Bidgostiana, 7, 59–72 (in Russian).
Horyna, O.V. (2008). Kohnityvno-komunikatyvni kharakterystyky amerykanskoho elektoralnoho dyskursu respublikantsiv [Cognitive and communicative characteristics of the American Republican electoral discourse] (Unpublished candidate dissertation). V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine (in Ukrainian).
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: a practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövesces, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. In Cognitive linguistics, 28(2), 321–347.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics [W. Moore, & P. Cammack, Trans.]. London: Verso.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. (pp. 202–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: what conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2011, May 25). The mind and the Obama magic. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mind-and-the-obama-ma_b_111105
Lakoff, G. (2013, November 6). Obama reframes Syria: metaphor and war revisited. Retrieved October, 2, 2019, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-reframes-syria-meta_b_3879335
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Shevchenko, I. S. (2018). Tabloidnist’ dyskursu amerykanskyh prezydentiv dvadtsiat pershoho stolittia [Tabloid nature of the 21st century American presidential discourse]. Visnyk KhNU, 87, 62–68 (in Ukrainian).
Shevchenko, I. S. (2013). Strategija i taktika na predizbornija diskurs pri Dzhordzh Bush [Strategy and tactics of George Bush’s electoral discourse]. Teoria i istorija na retorikata. Sofia: Univ. “St. Kl. Ohridski” Press (in Bulgarian).
Shevchenko, I., & Gutorov, V. (2019). A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and Ukrainian discourse. In Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 4(2), 301–341.
Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics. Handbooks of pragmatics. Vol. 4 (pp. 3–22). Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turner, M. (1996). Conceptual blending and counterfactual argument in the social and behavioral sciences. In P. Tetclock, & A. Belkin (Eds.), Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics (pp. 291–295). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zhabotynskaya, S. A. (2013). Imja kak tekst: konceptual’naja set’ leksicheskogo znachenija (analiz imeni jemocii) [The name as a text: conceptual network of lexical meaning (analysis of the name of emotion). Cognition, communication, discourse, 6, 47–76 (in Russian).
Copyright (c) 2020 Iryna Shevchenko, Tamara Goncharova, Volodymyr Gutorov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
