Chapter 7
Variations of metaphors in party manifestos about EU finality
Assessing party positions through conceptual metaphors
The literature on party positions on European integration and the closely related literature on Euroscepticism rely largely, from a methodological point of view, on coding of election manifestos and expert surveys/judgments. This paper opts for a different approach to study party positions on European integration based on an analysis of variation of the metaphors used by political parties in the discourse about the EU political finality. On the basis of key conceptual metaphors used in the discourse on EU finality that are identified in the relevant literature as well as the corpus itself, we analyze Czech political parties’ election manifestos issued for the 2004, 2009 and 2014 European Parliament elections. The analysis is then connected to party positions on European integration.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Metaphors and the study of party positions on European integration
- 3.Metaphors about the European finality debate: The research design
- 4.Analysis and results
- 4.1Variation of metaphors: Interparty and cross-temporal comparison
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (42)
Benoit, K. & Laver, M.
(
2006)
Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bougher, L. D.
(
2012)
The Case for Metaphor in Political Reasoning and Cognition.
Political Psychology, 33 (1), 145–163.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Budge, I.
(
1994)
A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally.
British Journal of Political Science, 24 (4), 443–467.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Budge, I., Robertson, D. & Hearl, D.
(
1987)
Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chaban, N. & Kelly, S.
(
2017)
Tracing the Evolution of EU Images Using a Case-Study of Australia and New Zealand.
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55 (4), 691–708.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chaban, N., Stats, K. & Bain, J.
(
2006)
The European Union in Metaphors: Images of the EU in the Asia-Pacifica.
20th IPSA World Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, 9–13 July.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
2013)
Bringing Concepts from Cognitive Linguistics into the analysis of policies and the political.
Journal of International Relations and Development, 16 (2), 294–310.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L.
(
1999)
Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and language. In
Low, G. &
Cameron, L. (Eds),
Researching and Applying Metaphor (pp. 149–76), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P.
(
2004)
Metaphors Europe lives by: Language and institutional change of the european union. In
EUI Working Paper SPS no. 2004/15. San Domenico: European University Institute.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P.
(
2005)
Identifying and assessing metaphors: The discourse on European future.
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Granada, 14–19 April 2005.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P.
(
2006)
Motion, container and equilibrium: metaphors in the discourse about European integration.
European Journal of International Relations, 12 (4), 499–531.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P.
(
2010)
Of metaphors, concepts and reality: A reply to onuf.
Perspectives – The Central European Review of International Affairs, 18 (1), 77–86.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P. & Beneš, V.
(
2015)
Czech metaphors about Europe: Havel vs Klaus.
Journal of International Relations and Development, 18 (4), 532–555.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drulák, P. & Konigová, L.
(
2007)
Figuring out Europe: EU metaphors in the minds of Czech civil servants.
Perspectives – The Central European Review of International Affairs, 15 (1), 5–23.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eder, N., Jenny, M. & Müller, W. C.
(
2017)
Manifesto functions: How party candidates view and use their party’s central policy document.
Electoral Studies, 45, 75–87.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Føllesdal, A. & Hix, S.
(
2006)
Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik.
Journal of Common Market Studies, 44 (3), 533–562.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gabel, M. J. & Hix, S.
(
2002)
Defining the EU political space: An empirical study of the European elections manifestos, 1979–1999.
Comparative Political Studies, 35 (8), 934–964.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, J. J.
(
1972a)
Introduction. In
Gumperz, J. J. &
Hymes, D. H. (Eds),
Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 1–25), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, J. J.
(
1972b)
The speech community. In
Giglioli, P. (Ed),
Language and Social Context (pp. 219–31), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Havlík, V.
(
2011)
A breaking-up of a pro-European consensus: attitudes of Czech political parties towards the European integration (1998–2010).
Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44 (2), 129–147.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hellstrom, J.
(
2008)
Who leads, who follows? re-examining the party-electorate linkages on European integration.
Journal of European Public Policy, 15 (8), 1127–1144.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hix, S. & Noury, A.
(
2009)
After enlargement: voting patterns in the sixth European parliament.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34 (2), 159–174.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hulsse, R.
(
2006)
Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra-nationalist identity.
Journal of International Relations and Development, 9 (4), 396–421.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaal, B.
(
2017)
Worldview and Social Practice: A Discourse-Space Approach to Political Text Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kimmel, M.
(
2009a)
The EU constitution in a stereoscopic view: Qualitative content analysis and metaphor analysis compared. In
Bruell, C.,
Mokre, M. &
Pausch, M. (Eds),
Democracy Needs Dispute – the Debate on the European Constitution (pp. 119–162), Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kimmel, M.
(
2009b)
Metaphors of the EU constitutional debate: ways of charting discourse coherence in a complex metaphor field.
Metaphorik.de, 9 (2): 49–100.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I. & McDonald, M.
(
2007)
Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and Oecd 1990–2003. Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kovář, J.
(
2015)
Europeanisation of EP election manifestos: An application of a new approach on the case of slovak political parties.
Czech Journal of Political Science, 22 (2), 105–126.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2002)
Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
2016)
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 3rd ed. ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(
1980)
Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
(
1989)
More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lord, C. J.
(
2010)
The aggregating function of political parties in EU decision-making.
Living Reviews in European Governance, 5 (3).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luoma-aho, M.
(
2004)
‘‘Arm’ versus “Pillar’: The politics of metaphors of the Western European Union at the 1990–91 intergovernmental conference on political union.
Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (1), 106–127.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Musolff, A.
(
2004)
The heart of the European body politic. British and German perspectives on Europe’s central organ.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25 (5–6), 437–452.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pragglejaz Group
(
2007)
MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse.
Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Serfaty, S.
(Ed) (
2003)
The European Finality Debate and Its National Dimensions. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taggart, P. & Szczerbiak, A.
(
2002)
Europeanisation, Euroscepticism and party systems: Party-based Euroscepticism in the candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe.
Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 3 (1), 23–41.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trechsel, A. H. & Mair, P.
(
2011)
When parties – also – position themselves: an introduction to the EU profiler.
Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8 (1), 1–20.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tully, J.
(
1988)
The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner’s analysis of politics. In
Tully, J. (Ed);
Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (pp. 7–25), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Elfrinkhof, A., Maks, I. & Kaal, B.
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Coates, Adam
2023.
How Do Philosophical Positions Influence the Social Science Research Process? A Classification and Metaphor Analysis of Researchers’ Descriptions.
Social Epistemology ► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Hloušek, Vít & Petr Kaniok
2021.
Europe forever? Czech political parties on the orientation of Czech foreign policy.
East European Politics 37:4
► pp. 702 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.