Article published In:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict: Online-First ArticlesPolarisation in Venezuelan presidential tweets
Metaphors and social actor representations as divisive tools
The Venezuelan Presidential Crisis emerged as a unique polarising political scenario in January 2019, when Juan
Guaidó, president of the National Assembly, proclaimed himself interim president of the country, despite the victory obtained by
Nicolás Maduro in the May 2018 presidential elections. Considering this context and the role of social media in the spread of
polarisation, the present manuscript examines how metaphors and social actor representations act as divisive discursive tools in
the tweets of Maduro and Guaidó. To do so, a corpus of tweets posted by these politicians during the first year of the conflict
(2019–2020) is analysed, adopting a target-based approach (Stefanowitsch and Gries
2006) to identify the polarising metaphors and a socio-cognitive framework (Darics and
Koller 2019; van Leeuwen 2008) to study the social actor representations.
The results reveal that these discursive devices help both leaders to construct their social identities, legitimise themselves,
delegitimise the other and reproduce their polarising ideological schemas.
Keywords: polarisation, polarising metaphors, social actor representations, Venezuela, presidential tweets
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Polarisation, political discourse, and Twitter
- 3.Polarising metaphors and social actor representations
- 4.Methodology: A corpus-based approach to polarisation
- 5.Polarising metaphors and social actor representations in Venezuelan presidential tweets
- 5.1Polarising metaphors
- 5.1.1Propositional-schematic metaphors
- 5.1.2Event-schematic metaphors
- 5.1.3Image-schematic metaphors
- 5.2Social actor representations
- 5.2.1Inclusion and exclusion
- 5.2.2Evaluation
- 5.2.3Grammatical action
- 5.2.4Personalisation and impersonalisation
- 5.1Polarising metaphors
- 6.Implications and concluding remarks
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 16 April 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00093.pet
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00093.pet
References (63)
Adrián, Thays. 2013. “Divide
y Vencerás: La Antonimia Como Estrategia Ideológica de Polarización En El Discurso de Hugo Chávez
Frías.” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Del
Discurso 13 (1): 9–32.
Ahmed, Mervat. 2021. “Polarization
and Negative-Other ‘China’ Presentation in US President Trump’s COVID-19 Tweets: A Critical Discourse
Analysis.” Cairo Studies in
English (2): 145–162.
Al-Ghazzi, Omar. 2021. “We
Will Be Great Again: Historical Victimhood in Populist Discourse.” European Journal of Cultural
Studies 24 (1): 45–59.
Álvarez, Alexandra, and Irma Chumaceiro. 2010. “¡Con
La Iglesia Hemos Topado…! Aspectos de Una Interacción Polémica Entre El Presidente Chávez y El Cardenal Urosa
Savino.” ALED 10 (1): 35–63.
Arcimavičienė, Liudmila. 2019. “Self
and Other Metaphors as Facilitating Features of Populist Style in Diplomatic Discourse: A Case Study of Obama and Putin’s
Speeches.” In Populist Discourse: International
Perspectives, edited by Marcia Macaulay, 89–124. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baider, Fabienne H., and Maria Constantinou. 2014. “Language
of Cyber-Politics: ‘Imaging/Imagining’ Communities.” Lodz Papers in
Pragmatics 10 (2): 213–243.
Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2017. “The
Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature
Review.” Metaphor and
Symbol 32 (2): 118–134.
Bolívar, Adriana. 2013. “Los
Pronombres Personales En La Dinámica Del Discurso Político.” Estudios Del Discurso En América
Latina. Homenaje a Ana María
Harvey, no. 1984: 167–191.
Bouvier, Gwen, and Judith E. Rosenbaum, eds. 2020. Twitter,
the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online
Deliberation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Breeze, Ruth. 2019. “Emotion
in Politics: Affective-Discursive Practices in UKIP and Labour.” Discourse and
Society 30 (1): 24–43.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus
Approaches to Critical Metaphor
Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
. 2011. Politicians
and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. 2nd
edn. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chun, Christian W. 2016. “Exploring Neoliberal Language,
Discourses and Identities.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Identity, edited by Siân Preece, 558–571.
Coesemans, Roel, and Barbara De Cock. 2017. “Self-Reference
by Politicians on Twitter: Strategies to Adapt to 140 Characters.” Journal of
Pragmatics 1161: 37–50.
Conger, Kate. 2023. “So
What Do We Call Twitter Now Anyway?” The New York
Times, 2023. [URL]
Connett, Ricardo. 2022. “La
Construcción de Las Identidades Políticas En El Discurso Populista de Hugo Chávez . Un Análisis Basado En Los Estudios Del
Discurso Asistido Por Corpus.” Ñemitỹrã. Revista Multilingüe de Lengua, Sociedad y
Educación 4 (3): 83–95.
Darics, Erika, and Veronika Koller. 2019. “Social
Actors ‘to Go’: An Analytical Toolkit to Explore Agency in Business Discourse and
Communication.” Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly 82 (2): 214–238.
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor
and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. “The
Evaluative Properties of Metaphors.” In Researching and Applying
Metaphor in the Real World, edited by Graham Low, Zazie Todd, Alice Deignan, and Lynne Cameron, 357–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Donohue, William, and Mark Hamilton. 2022. “A
Framework for Understanding Polarizing Language.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Persuasion, edited by Jeanne Fahnestock, and Randy Allen Harris, 207–223.
Erdogan-Ozturk, Yasemin, and Hale Isik-Guler. 2020. “Discourses
of Exclusion on Twitter in the Turkish Context: #ülkemdesuriyeliistemiyorum
(#idontwantsyriansinmycountry).” Discourse, Context and
Media 361: 100400.
Evolvi, Giulia. 2017. “#Islamexit:
Inter-Group Antagonism on Twitter.” Information Communication and
Society 22 (3): 386–401.
Filardo-Llamas, Laura, Esperanza Morales-López, and Alan Floyd, eds. 2021. Discursive
Approaches to Socio-Political Polarization and
Conflict. Preprint. London: Routledge.
Flusberg, Stephen J., Teenie Matlock, and Paul H. Thibodeau. 2018. “War
Metaphors in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and
Symbol 33 (1): 1–18.
Gadavanij, Savitri. 2020. “Contentious
Polities and Political Polarization in Thailand: Post-Thaksin Reflections.” Discourse and
Society 31 (1): 44–63.
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. “The
YouTubification of Politics, Impoliteness and
Polarization.” In Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and
Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, edited by Rotimi Taiwo, 540–563. Hershey: IGI Global.
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing
the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hampe, Beate, ed. 2005. From
Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive
Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hart, Christopher. 2011. “Moving
beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to
CDA.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and
Cognition, edited by Christopher Hart, 171–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2018. “Cognitive
Linguistic Critical Discourse Studies: Connecting Language and
Image.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Politics, edited by Ruth Wodak, and Bernhard Forchtner, 187–201.
Hurst, Luke. 2023. “‘More
Toxic, Less Valuable, Less Useful’: Twitter’s Year of Transformation to X under Elon
Musk.” Euronews Next, 2023. [URL]
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubícek, Vojtech Kovár, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. “The
Sketch Engine: Ten Years
On.” Lexicography 1 (1): 7–36.
Koller, Veronika. 2008. “Corporate
Brands as Socio-Cognitive Representations.” In Cognitive
Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, edited
by Gitte Kristiansen, and René Dirven, 389–418. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
. 2012. “How
to Analyse Collective Identity in Discourse – Textual and Contextual Parameters.” Critical
Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across
Disciplines 5 (2): 19–38.
. 2014. “Applying
Social Cognition Research to Critical Discourse Studies: The Case of Collective
Identities.” In Contemporary Critical Discourse
Studies, edited by Christopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 147–66. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kreis, Ramona. 2017. “The
‘Tweet Politics’ of President Trump.” Journal of Language and
Politics 16 (4): 607–618.
Krendel, Alexandra, Mark McGlashan, and Veronika Koller. 2022. “The
Representation of Gendered Social Actors Across Five Manosphere Communities on
Reddit.” Corpora 17 (2): 1–25. [URL]
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women,
Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [URL].
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors
We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic
Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, Tao, and Yifan Zhu. 2020. “How
Does China Appraise Self and Others? A Corpus-Based Analysis of Chinese Political
Discourse.” Discourse and
Society 31 (2): 153–71.
Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political
Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and
Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic. [URL]
Over, Harriet, and Cade McCall. 2018. “Becoming
Us and Them: Social Learning and Intergroup Bias.” Social and Personality Psychology
Compass 12 (4): e12384.
Peterssen, Silvia. 2022. “Ideological
Polarisation in the Venezuelan Presidential Crisis.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis
Across
Disciplines 14 (1): 63–85. [URL]
Peterssen, Silvia, and Augusto Soares da Silva. 2023. “Polarising
Metaphors in the Venezuelan Presidential Crisis.” Journal of Language and
Politics.
Peterssen, Silvia, and Augusto Soares da Silva. In
press. Polarising metaphors in far-right populist tweets: A comparative cross-linguistic
study. In Metaphor in Social-political Contexts: Critical,
Socio-Cognitive Approaches, edited by Manuela Romano. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Romano, Manuela, and Maria Dolores Porto, eds. 2016. Exploring
Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and Cross-Linguistic
Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL].
Salamurović, Aleksandra. 2020. “Metonymy
and the Conceptualisation of Nation in Political Discourse.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive
Linguistics
Association 8 (1): 181–196.
Semino, Elena. 2017. “Corpus
Linguistics and Metaphor.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 463–476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharifian, Farzad. 2011. Cultural
Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Soares da Silva, Augusto, Maria Josep Cuenca, and Manuela Romano. 2017. “The
Conceptualisation of Austerity in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish
Press.” In Advances in Cultural
Linguistics, edited by Farzad Sharifian, 345–368. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Squires, Lauren. 2015. “Twitter:
Design, Discourse, and the Implications of Public Text.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, edited by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 239–255. London: Routledge.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A
Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to
MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries, eds. 2006. Corpus-Based
Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [URL].
Taylor, Charlotte, and Anna Marchi, eds. 2018. Corpus
Approaches to Discourse. A Critical
Review. Abingdon: Routledge. [URL]
2018. “Socio-Cognitive Discourse
Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse
Studies, edited by John Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, 26–43. Abingdon: Routledge.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse
and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waisbord, Silvio, and Adriana Amado. 2017. “Populist
Communication by Digital Means: Presidential Twitter in Latin America.” Information
Communication and
Society 20 (9): 1330–1346.
Wirth-Koliba, Victoria. 2016. “The
Diverse and Dynamic World of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in Political Discourse.” Critical Approaches to
Discourse Analysis across
Disciplines 8 (1): 23–37. [URL]