Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 237–258

Draining the swamp

Creative figurative language in political discourse

| University of Tuzla
| University of Tuzla

This chapter examines the use of the expression to drain the swamp, whose meaning is created in conceptual blending, and the creative figurative language produced by the elaboration, modification, and reinterpretation of the blend itself in the contemporary American political discourse. This paper aims to show that creative figurative language can be used in different ways by members of a discourse community to achieve various rhetorical goals and discourse coherence. Specifically, applying conceptual blending theory, this paper analyzes innovative conceptual blends used to keep political discussions alive and be rhetorically effective. In addition, such creative blends also provide discourse coherence at the intertextual level.

Keywords: creative figurative language, conceptual blending, political discourse, discourse goals, intertextual coherence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual blending theory
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Draining the swamp
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.10ber
References
Berberović, S.
(2013) Magic tricks with race cards: Conceptual integration theory and political discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 14(2–3), 307–321.Google Scholar
Berberović, S., & Mujagić, M.
(2017) A marriage of convenience or an amicable divorce: Metaphorical blends in the debates on Brexit. ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A.
(2005) Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., Jong Tjien Fa, M., & de Graaf, A.
(2019) A tale of two swamps: Transformations of a metaphorical frame in online partisan media. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 57–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A.
(2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Analysing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor 2nd edition. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C.
(2002) Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as talk and text: Analytic approaches to political discourse. (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S.
(1996) The Menendez Brothers virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67–81). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) What’s so funny: Conceptual blending in humorous examples. Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
(2005) Extemporaneous blending: Conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.Google Scholar
(2006) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187–210). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(2000) Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 175–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Purple persuasion: Conceptual blending and deliberative rhetoric. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pascual E.
(2006) For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
(Ed.) (2006) Special issue on conceptual blending. Language and Literature, 15(1).Google Scholar
(2012) The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. E.
(2014) Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorst, A. G.
(2017) Textual patterning of metaphor. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 196–210). London: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1985) Mental spaces. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 351–376). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2000) Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2006) Conceptual integration networks. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 303–371), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reprint of (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Conceptual blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, L.
(2016) Metaphor and metonymy. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 107–128), London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T.
(Eds.) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, V.
(2004) Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in culture, universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Aspect of metaphor in discourse. Belgrade English language and literature studies (BELLS), 1, 81–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Metaphor in media language and cognition: A perspective from conceptual metaphor theory. Lege artis, 3(1), 124–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(2014) Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2000) Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 216–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London & Oxford & New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 109, 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2011) Conceptual integration. In J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, vol. 6 (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(2008) Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley, & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Pascual, E.
(2017) Conceptual blending theory. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, D. L.
(2017a) Metaphorical stories in discourse. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Contextual activation of story simulation in metaphor comprehension. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 220–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction, 3(2), 250–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J.
(2013) Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(2007) Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 377–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
(1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today, 20(3), 297–418.Google Scholar
(2003) Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 469–487). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar