Cover not available
Part of
Cultural Linguistics and Critical Discourse Studies
Edited by Monika Reif and Frank Polzenhagen
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 103] 2023
► pp. 36–51

Conceptualising presidential elections

Competing metaphorical models, and alternative approaches to their critical analysis

| Europa-Universität Flensburg

This contribution investigates the metaphorical conceptualisation of US-presidential elections. A solid onomasiological metaphor study (cf. Jäkel 2003) brings out alternative and even competing models. One point of this paper is to decide which approach to the analysis of political metaphor is better suited for a critical discourse analysis: Steen’s (2008, 2011a) concept of deliberate metaphor on the one hand, or Charteris-Black’s (2012) purposeful metaphor on the other hand. This is discussed on the basis of authentic discourse data from the US-presidential campaign of 2016 and the 2018 midterm elections. Following a concise analysis of some conventional metaphors instatiating standard alternative models in the public media domain, Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s uses of metaphor are compared to results of an investigation of former US-president Barack Obama’s metaphorical language in a corpus of eight of his major speeches held between 2008 and 2012 (cf. Jäkel 2012).

Keywords: purposeful/deliberate metaphor, political discourse, onomasiological metaphor analysis, critical discourse analysis, presidential elections
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptualising presidential elections: Some standard alternative metaphors
  • 3.Deliberate or purposeful? How to analyse metaphors in political rhetoric
  • 4.Competing metaphorical models: Trump versus Clinton
  • 5.Obama’s alternative model
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.103.02jak
References
Cameron, Lynne
(2003) Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
(2011) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor (second edition). Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Forensic deliberations on ‘purposeful metaphor’. In: Metaphor and the Social World 2(1), pp. 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)
[URL] last accessed 10/06/2022].
Jäkel, Olaf
(2003) Wie Metaphern Wissen schaffen: Die kognitive Metapherntheorie und ihre Anwendung in Modell-Analysen der Diskursbereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Religion. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
(2012) ‘No, they can’t’ … translate President Obama into German: A case study in critical cognitive linguistics. In: Alina Kwiatkowska (Ed.), Texts and Minds: Papers in Cognitive Poetics and Rhetoric (pp. 259–273). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251). 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
(1980) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard
(2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23, pp. 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard
(2011a) From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. metaphorik.de 21, pp. 83–111.Google Scholar
(2011b) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), pp. 26–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma
(2010) A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar