Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:1 (2014) ► pp.101–130

Source domains in conceptualizations of the state in Chinese and Hungarian political discourse

| Doctoral School of Linguistics, Eötvös Lóránd University (Hungary)

In the view of cognitive linguistics, abstract concepts are often understood through more concrete domains of experience, and the resulting conceptual metaphors deeply influence the way people think of and reason about them. Over the past few decades, several interesting studies have been published about this feature in the realm of politics, where the power of speech is greatly felt. One of the most basic concepts of this realm is that of the state, sometimes equated with the country people live in. This paper discusses similarities and differences in the conceptualization of the state in Chinese political discourse on one hand, and Hungarian political discourse on the other, as they are reflected in the source domains used as vehicles of understanding. The discussion is based on corpus research findings, but the analysis relies both on individual intuition of the authors, members of these two cultures (yielding quality analysis), and on frequency counts in the texts of the corpora (quantity analysis). The functions of culture in shaping metaphors and choosing a specific source domain are also taken into consideration in this contrastive study of the two languages.

Keywords: source domains, state metaphor, political discourse, Chinese, Hungarian
Published online: 5 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.1.05kou
References
A’Beckett, L
(2012) The play of voices in metaphor discourse: A case study of nations are brothers. Metaphor and Symbol, 271, 171–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J
(2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T
(1997) What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2002) Political discourse and ideology. In C.U. Lorda & M. Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs polític (pp. 15–34).Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. IULA.Google Scholar
Farkas, O
(2012a) Az állam fogalmának konceptualizációja a magyar politikában az elmúlt tizenegy év országértékelő beszédei alapján, avagy van-e, magyar csavar”. In V. Vilmos és & B. Géza (Eds.), Nyelv és kultúra – kulturális nyelvészet, magyar szemiotikai tanulmányok (pp. 25–26). Budapest.Google Scholar
(2012b) Conceptualizations of the state in Hungarian political discourse. In S. Kleinke, Z. Kövecses, A. Musolff & V. Szelid (Eds.), Cognition and culture - The role of metaphor and metonymy (pp. 154–162).Budapest: ELTE Eötvös kiadó.Google Scholar
under publication). The concept of the state in Hungarian political discourse – Variations reflected in the language of the constitutions.
Kövecses, Z
(2005) Metaphor in culture – Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language, mind and culture – A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Hol is állunk most politikailag? Avagy mit taníthat nekünk, magyaroknak a kognitív tudomány. In T. Frank & K. Károly (Eds.), Anglisztika és amerikanisztika: Magyar kutatások az ezredfordulón. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
(2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lian, S
(1993) Contrastive studies of English and Chinese. China: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
(2002) On modes of thinking between Chinese and Westerners. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching——Academic Journal of Dalian Foreign Language College. 2002(2)Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A
(1996) Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., Farmer, T., & Waugh, L
(2007) They actually said that? An introduction to working with usage data through discourse and corpus analysis. In Methods in cognitive linguistics(pp. 19–52). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins(Human Cognitive Processing Series) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Political metaphor and bodies politic. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Cultural differences in the understanding of the metaphor of the “body politic”. In cognition and culture – The role of metaphor and metonymy (pp. 145–153). Budapest: Tálentum Sorozat 6. Elte Eötvös Kiadó.Google Scholar
Semino, E
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitch, A., & Gries, S
(2006) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N
(1998) The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Metaphor from body and culture. In R.W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) The relationship between metaphor, body and culture. In R.M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 387–407). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar