Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 6:2 (2016) ► pp.276–303

Metaphor evolution and survival in Hungarian public discourse on the Trianon peace treaty

| Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
The peace Treaty of Trianon, which was signed by the representatives of Hungary and the Allies in 1920, caused substantial economic, political and social changes in the life of the Hungarian nation. The paper explores how far these changes have been conceptualized by conceptual metaphors in Hungarian public discourse from 1920 to the present day. Specifically, it looks at whether there is a conventionalized metaphoric conceptual system concerning the treaty, which began (or was current) in 1920 and has been developing for almost a hundred years.
The paper applies a qualitative approach to a small corpus of written texts. The corpus contains twenty texts, which are taken from four different categories of public discourse (political, academic, informative and media) and four time periods (1920–1945, 1945–1990, 1990–2010, and 2010–2015).
The paper concludes that, within the public discourse on the consequences of the Trianon peace treaty, the same metaphors have fundamentally survived over nine decades. This conceptual history of metaphors suggests heavy conventionalization, which can play a crucial role in the survival of a certain mental image of the nation and in maintaining negative emotions about the treaty. It also suggests that the Trianon frame is still an essential part of Hungarian national identity.
Keywords: conceptual development, conventionalized metaphoric conceptual system, the peace treaty of Trianon, alternative conceptualization, within culture variation of conceptual metaphors, function of metaphors, conceptual metaphor, metaphor evolution
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.6.2.05put
References (49)
Cameron, L. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. (2012). Figurative language in discourse. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 437–463). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dénes, I.Z. (2001). Európai mintakövetés - nemzeti öncélúság. Értékvilág és identitáskeresés a 19-20. századi Magyarországon. Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Framenet project. (2015). Retrieved from [URL] (June 10, 2015).
Grady, J.E. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. Correlation vs resemblance. In R.W. Gibbs Jr & G.J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyáni, G. (2012). Nemzet, kollektív emlékezet és public history. Történelmi Szemle, 54(3), 357–375.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Gy. Cs. (2002). Hungarológia és nemzeti mítoszok. Korunk, 13(11), 90–93.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–39). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2015). Where metaphors come from Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Manuscript). Conceptual metaphor theory.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and conceptual evolution. Metaphoric.de, 2004(71). [URL]Google Scholar
. (2010a). Metaphor in discourse history. In M.E. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allah (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 70–93). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010b). Metaphor, nation and the holocaust: The concept of the body politic. New York & London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The heart of Europe. Synchronic variation and historical trajectories of a political metaphor. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Speaking of Europe: Approaches to complexity in European political discourse (pp. 135–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2009). Metaphor and situational motivation. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics, 141, 221–233.Google Scholar
. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 757–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T.A. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeidler, M. (2002). A magyar irredenta kultusz a két világháború között. Budapest: Teleki László Alpítvány.Google Scholar
Zinken, J., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2008). Discourse metaphors. In R.M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol. II. Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 363–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2003). Ideological imagination: Intertextual and correlational metaphors in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 14(4), 507–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Act No 45. 2010. On the testimony for national cohesion. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Balsai, I. (2002). Az Országgyűlés 6. ülésnapja, 2002. június 4-én, kedden. Retrieved from [URL]
Bernáth, Z. (2010). Vádemelés az összeomlott békerendszer felett, a romok alól. Budapest: Heraldika Kiadó.Google Scholar
Bethlen, I. (1933). Angliai előadásai. Budapest: Genius.Google Scholar
Duray, M. (2008). A trianoni ítélet három nemzedék távlatából. In E. Raffay & Sz. Archimédesz (Eds.), Trianon átírta Európát (pp. 29–38). Budapest: Trianon Kutatóintézet.Google Scholar
Gratz, G. (1935). A forradalmak kora. Magyarország története 1918–1920. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Juhász, Gy. (1969). Magyarország külpolitikája 1919–1945. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó.Google Scholar
Király, Z.(1989). Az Országgyűlés 41. ülése, 1989. március 10-én, pénteken. In Az országgyűlés naplója , Vol. 31 (pp. 3494–3498). Budapest.
Nagy, L. Zs. (1987). Trianon a magyar társadalom tudatában. Századvég, 31, 5–25.Google Scholar
Lángi, A.M. (1998). Nyilatkozatok a trianoni békeparancs ellen. In D. Kiss (Ed.), Trianon kalendárium (pp. 62–69). Budapest: Trianon Társaság.Google Scholar
Lőkkös, J. (2010). Trianonról a 21. század elején. Budapest: Püski Kiadó.Google Scholar
Molnár, E. (Ed.). (1964). Magyarország története. 2. kötet1. Budapest: Gondolat Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Ottlik, L. (1928). Új Hungária felé. Magyar Szemle, 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Pelczné Gáll, I. (2011). Ünnepi beszéd a Nemzeti Összetartozás Napjának tiszteletére rendezett kopjafa avatáson Bükkaranyoson. [URL]Google Scholar
Raffay, E. (1995). A magyar tragédia: Trianon 75 éve. Budapest: Püski Kiadó.Google Scholar
. (1999). A szétszórtság nemzete. In P. Lakatos (Ed.), Bűnünk és bajunk Trianon (pp. 7–15). Miskolc: Felsőmagyarország Kiadó,Google Scholar
Ránki, Gy. (Ed.). (1984). Magyarország története tíz kötetben. 1/8 kötet1. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Romsics, I. (2001). A trianoni békeszerződés. Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
Szekfű, Gy. (1934). Három nemzedék és ami utána következik. Budapest: Egyetemi Nyomda.Google Scholar
Zakariás, G.S. (1933). A revízió útja. Budapest: Erdélyi Férfiak Egyesülete.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Musolff, Andreas
2021. The Nation as a Body or Person in Present-Day British Political Discourse. In National Conceptualisations of the Body Politic [Cultural Linguistics, ], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2021. The Nation as a Body or Person in Other European L1 Language Samples: Hungarian, Lithuanian and Greek. In National Conceptualisations of the Body Politic [Cultural Linguistics, ], ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2021. Researching political metaphor cross-culturally: English, Hungarian, Greek and Turkish L1-based interpretations of the Nation as Body metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics 183 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2022. Universality and/or Cultural Specificity of Metaphors and Analogies? NATIONS as BODIES/PERSONS. In Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities [Synthese Library, 453], ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo
Putz, Orsolya
2020. Image metaphors of Trianon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Putz, Orsolya
2022. Image metaphors of Trianon. In Visual Metaphors [Benjamins Current Topics, 124], ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 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.