Chapter 3
Metaphor as a (de-)legitimizing strategy in leadership discourse
The language of crisis in Winston Churchill’s Cold War speeches
This chapter investigates Churchill’s Cold War speeches as a case of how cognitive and corpus linguistics may serve as a useful tool for analyzing how political leaders legitimize their agendas via linguistic means. We find that Churchill’s rhetoric makes extensive use of the source domains person, journey, and building. The argumentative purpose is at least twofold. First, journey and building metaphors give positive value to the country’s prospects. Second, the journey metaphor is found to co-occur with personification, with the purpose of seeking partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom. We conclude by discussing how political leaders linguistically represent and conceptually frame a crisis, especially via metaphorical means, convincing their people of the usefulness of certain proposals and thus legitimizing their agendas, with Churchill as a representative example.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Analytical framework
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Findings and analysis
- 4.1Personification in Churchill’s Cold War speeches
- 4.2
journey metaphor in Churchill’s Cold War speeches
- 4.3
building metaphor in Churchill’s Cold War speeches
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
-
Corpus and database consulted
References (34)
References
Cameron, Lynne, and Graham Low. 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cap, Piotr. 2006. Legitimization in Political Discourse. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric. New York: Macmillan.
Chilton, Paul Anthony. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Churchill, Winston S. 1930. A Roving Commission: My Early Life. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Coulson, Seana. 2008. “Framing and Blending in Persuasive Discourse.” In Frames, Corpora and Knowledge Representation, ed. by Rema Rossini Favretti, 33–42. Bologna: Bolonia University Press.
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer. 2013. “Words as Weapons for Mass Persuasion.” Text & Talk 33 (3): 311–330.
Edelman, Murray. 1977. Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policie That Fail. New York: Academic Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. “Frame semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
Geis, Michael L. 1987. The Language of Politics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. New York: Routledge.
Hart, Christopher. 2014. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology. London: Bloomsbury.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Jowett, Garth, and Victoria O'Donnel. 1992. Propaganda and Persuasion. London and Newbury Park: Sage.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrž, and David Tugwell. 2004. “The Sketch Engine.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, ed. by Geoffrey Williams, and Sandra Vessier, 105–116. Lorient, France: Universite de Bretagne-Sud.
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don't Think of an Elephant. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, George. 2008. The Political Mind. New York: Penguin.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. London: University of Chicago Press.
Lu, L.Wei-lun. 2008. “From Textual Prompts to Cognitive Models: A Context-oriented Perspective on Metaphor Interpretation in Taiwanese Presidential Speeches.” Language and Linguistics 9 (2): 341–358.
Lu, L.Wei-lun, and Kathleen Ahrens. 2008. “Ideological Influence on BUILDING Metaphors in Taiwanese Presidential Speeches.” Discourse & Society 19 (3): 383–408.
Lu, Wei-lun. 2017. “Religion and Worldview in Metaphor Use: Cultural Conceptualisations of Death in Taiwanese Buddhist and Christian Eulogistic Idioms.” In Advances in Cultural Linguistics ed. by Farzad Sharifian, 49–64. New York: Springer.
Macmillan Dictionary. 2009–2015
Pelclová, Jana. 2010. Persuasive Strategies in Advertising Discourse. A Lexico-grammatical and Socio-pragmatic Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brno: Masaryk University.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453–458.
van Dijk, Teun. 1995. “Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.” In Language and Peace, ed. by Christina Shaffner, and Anita L. Wendon, 17–33. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.
van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control:A Discourse-historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 10 (1): 83–118.
Corpus and database consulted
Selected Speeches of Winston Churchill. 2011. [URL].
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Berrocal, Martina & Aleksandra Salamurović
Kashiha, Hadi
2022.
On persuasive strategies: Metadiscourse practices in political speeches.
Discourse and Interaction 15:1
► pp. 77 ff.
Salama, Amir H. Y.
2022.
Cross-textual reconceptualisation of the deictic space of “victory” in political discourse: Donald Trump versus Joseph Biden.
Discourse and Interaction 15:1
► pp. 101 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.