I.LITERATURE REVIEWAccording to Fairclough (1989), “discourse has effectsupon social structures, as well as being determined by them and so contributesto social continuity and social change” (p. 14).
I.e. a speech or a piece ofwriting may have a great influence on society, as well as it can reflect the situationthat the society is in at the time of the speech being given or express theideology of the speaker. In the present paper, we are going to focus on oneparticular part of the discourse – metaphors. The aim is to analyse metaphors thatare expressed in public speeches by influential figures, more specifically, in presidents’George Washington and Donald Trump first inaugural speeches. When expressed ina public political speech, a metaphor isa matter of critical discourse analysis; therefore, the theoretical part of thepresent paper is going to be dedicated to the further explanation of this field,as well as to literature review of metaphors. 1.1.
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSISCritical discourse analysis (or CDA) is an approach tothe study of discourse that regards language as a form of social practice. Criticaldiscourse analysis is used to analyse political speech acts, to highlight therhetoric behind these speeches, and any forms of speech that may be used tomanipulate the impression given to the audience. CDA should not be regarded asa separate direction, specialization or school, as it only seeks to offer a newperspective of theorizing and analysis throughout the whole field of discoursestudies. In order to realize the aims of critical discourseanalysis effectively, critical research on discourse needs to comply with anumber of requirements. As suggested by Van Dijk, the requirements are thefollowing:1) Inorder to be recognized, CDA research has to be better than other research.2) CDAfocuses on political problems and social issues.3) Tobe more specific, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
4) Empiricallyadequate critical analysis usually involves different subjects of study;5) CDAdoes not end with describing structures of discourse; it tries to explain thesestructures in terms of properties of social interaction and especially socialstructure (Van Dijk, 1980). As summarized by Fairclough and Wodak (1997), the maintenets of critical discourse analysis state that:1) Criticaldiscourse analysis gives attention to social problems;2) Powerrelations are discursive;3) Discourseforms culture and society;4) Discourseperforms ideological work;5) Discourseis related to studies of history;6) Therelation between discourse and society is mediated;7) Discourseanalysis provides explanations and interpretations;8) Discourseis a type of social action (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). 1.2.SOCIAL POWERA central notion in most critical work on discourse isthe social power of groups orinstitutions. Van Dijk (1980) explains that groups have more or less power ifthey are able to control the acts and minds of members of other groups. Accordingto the various resources employed to exercise such power, different types ofpower may be distinguished.
E.g., the coercive power of the military andviolent men will rather be based on force; money will give the power to therich, whereas knowledge, information, or authority is the more or lesspersuasive power of parents, professors, or journalists.
While most people haveactive control only over everyday talk with family members, friends, orcolleagues, members of social groups and institutions that are more powerful haveexclusive control over one or more types of public discourse. E.g., professors havecontrol over scholarly discourse, and lawyers are able to control legaldiscourse, journalists control media discourse, while policy and otherpolitical discourse is in control of politicians. By that definition, the oneswho have more control over more discourse also have more power. 1.3.POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSISAs the present paper deals with inaugural speeches oftwo presidents of the United States of America, i.
e. political discourse,political discourse analysis (PDA) is to be defined further. Critical discourse analysis practitioners see theanalysis of political discourse as an essentially critical enterprise. Fairclough(2012) observes that PDA is therefore understood as the analysis of politicaldiscourse from a critical perspective, a perspective that focuses on thereproduction and contestation of political power through political discourse.PDA can have a lot to offer to political science and can contribute toanswering genuine political questions, but only if it focuses on features of discoursewhich are relevant to the purpose or function of the political process or eventwhose discursive dimension is being analysed. Focusing on the structure ofargumentation in a political speech is relevant in precisely this sense, as thepurpose of the speech may be to convince an audience that a certain course ofaction is right or a certain point of view is true.
This is the intendedperlocutionary effect, which is intrinsically associated with the speech act ofargumentation. Likewise, being able to analyse the structure of a practicalargument is indispensable to be able toevaluate it critically in a systematic, rigorous manner, something thatpolitical scientists would also want to do. Understanding the argumentativenature of political texts is, therefore, the key to being able to evaluate thepolitical strategies they are a part of.The political discourses that will be further analysedin the present paper are the first inaugural speeches from two presidents ofthe United States of America, who represent two different periods of time –George Washington (presidency period April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797) and DonaldTrump (the current president of the country, inaugurated on January 20, 2017). Inthe preceding discourse analysis we will analyse the metaphors that each of thepresidents used, however, before we commence the analysis, we first have to defineand explain the concept of a metaphor. Hence, the following chapters of theliterature review will be dedicated to the theory on metaphors.1.4.
TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF METAPHORA popular view – the most common conception ofmetaphor, both in scholarly circles and in the popular mind – is introduced by Kövecses(2010) who states that, “a metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing iscompared with another by saying that one is the other,” as in It’s just a house of cards. Alternatively, the Cambridge Dictionary definesit as “an expression, often found in literature, that describes a person orobject by referring to something that is considered to have similarcharacteristics to that person or object”. Let us take for example the phrase houseof cards. It would be considered a metaphor in the following context: “Katie’s plan to get into college was a house of cards.” We could alsoclaim that the phrase is used metaphorically in order to achieve artistic andrhetorical effect, since we speak and write metaphorically to impress otherswith embellished, rich language and aesthetically pleasing words, or to expressdeep emotions.
Kövecses indicates that a speaker would also add a certainquality that makes the metaphorical identification possible, i.e. somethingthat both of the entities that are being compared have in common.
In case ofthe previous example, Katie’s plansand a house of cards would both sharethe same quality of fragility. Kövecses names five of the most commonlyaccepted qualities that the traditional concept can be characterized by. 1) A metaphoris a linguistic phenomenon, it is a property of words; 2) metaphor is used for some artistic andrhetorical purpose, such as when Shakespeare writes, “All the world’s a stage”;3) metaphor is based on similarities between the two entities that arecompared. Plans must share somefeatures with a house of cards inorder for us to be able to use the phrase ahouse of cards as a metaphor for plans;4) metaphor is a conscious use of words, and the user of it must have a specialtalent to be able to do it well. Only great poets like Shakespeare or powerfulspeakers like Churchill, can master it; 5) it is also commonly held that a metaphoris a figure of speech that we can do without. We only use metaphors as specialeffects to embellish our language; hence, it is not a necessary part ofeveryday people communication, let alone day-to-day human thought andreasoning.
1.5.COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC VIEW OF METAPHORAs opposed to the most common conception of metaphor,George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980) have introduced their seminal study Metaphors We Live By. In this study, they have developed a new view ofmetaphor, which is challenging all of the previously discussed aspectsof the powerful traditional theory in a systematic way. Their theory is now knownas the “cognitive linguistic view of metaphor.” Lakoff and Johnson (1980) challengedthe deeply entrenched conception of metaphor by saying that: 1) metaphor is nota property of words, it is a property of concepts. 2) A metaphor is not just anartistic and aesthetic purpose; it serves as a mean to better understandcertain concepts. 3) Usually, a metaphor is not based on similarity; 4) metaphor is used in everyday life by ordinarypeople and they do it effortlessly, special talent is not needed, and 5) metaphor, far from being a superfluous though pleasing linguisticornament, is an inevitable process of human thought and reasoning (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980).
1.6.CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR AND metaphoricallinguistic expressionsDefinition of a conceptual metaphor suggested by Kövecses(2010) states that a conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains, inwhich one domain is understood in terms of another, i.e. conceptual domain A is conceptual domain B. A conceptual domain canbe defined as any clear organization of experience. For example, we havecoherently organized knowledge about journeys(i.
e. conceptual domain A) that we rely on in understanding life (i.e. conceptual domain B), and theconceptual metaphor would be Life is ajourney. The two domains that a conceptual metaphor consists ofhave special names. The conceptual domain whose qualities we use to drawmetaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain (previouslymentioned as the conceptual domain A) is called source domain, while the conceptual domain that is understood thisway (i.
e. conceptual domain B) is the targetdomain. Therefore, life, arguments,love, theory, ideas, and others are target domains, while journeys, war, buildings, food, plants, andothers are source domains. A convenient shorthand way of capturing this view oftarget and source domain, as summarized by Kövecses (2010), is the following: “The target domain is the domain that we tryto understand through the use of the source domain” (p. 25).Although a conceptual metaphor can function in alanguage as it is, it could also be regarded as a base from which a variety of metaphorical linguistic expressions canderive.
A metaphorical linguistic expression can be described throughout thepreviously used example – life is ajourney. While life is a journey isthe conceptual metaphor, all the preceding expressions that have to do with life and comefrom domain journey (e.g., I’m at crossroads in my life; She’ll go places in life; He’s withoutdirection in life; etc.) are called metaphorical linguisticexpressions.
In a bid to further explain what it could mean for aconcept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everydayactivity, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) start with the concept argument and the conceptual metaphor argument is war. Speakers constantly use the preceding metaphor day-to-daylanguage by a wide range of expressions: “Heattacked every weak point in my argument;I’ve never won an argument with him;Your claims are indefensible; I demolished his argument; Okay, shoot!; He shot down all of my arguments.” Based on given examples, we canobserve that an argument is not just described in terms of war. The two sidesof an argument see each other as opponents, attack each other, and try todefend themselves by planning and using strategies. Many of the actions thatpeople perform while arguing are formed by the concept of war to a certainextent. Even though the actual physical battle does not exist, there is averbal battle, and it is reflected by the structure of an argument – attack,defence, counterattack, etc. In this sense the argument is war metaphor is one that we carry out in this culture,i.e.
, it structures the actions we perform in arguing. Lakoff and Johnson also add that an argument could be described interms of something else, e.g. a dance. As they explain it, “Imagine a culturewhere an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen asperformers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasingway.” In a culture like the one described in the example, the process ofarguing would be completely different from what it is now and we would not regardit as an argument, it would be viewedas a different process.
That is what it means for a metaphor, in this case, theargumentis war, to shape the actions that we perform and how we comprehend what weare doing when we argue. Lakoff andJohnson also give another example of conceptual metaphor – time is money, as well as the expressions that derive from it, suchas “Youare wasting my time; Thisgadget will save you hours,”etc. From this we can see, that timeis very valuable in our culture. Given these examples, it is clear to see that byanalysing conceptual metaphors and metaphorical linguistic expressions that areused in a language, it is rather easy to determine particular culture’s pointof view regarding one or another topic. 1.7.KINDS OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHORAs observed by Kövecses (2010), there are distinctkinds of conceptual metaphor, and metaphors can be classified in a variety ofways.
These include classifications according to the conventionality, function, nature, and level of generality of metaphor. Metaphors could be classified inseveral other ways; however, the preceding approaches play the most importantrole in the cognitive linguistic view. The four ways of classification ofmetaphors are to be further analysed below.1)Conventionality of metaphor – theterm “conventional” is used in thesense of well established and well entrenched, i.e. conventionality ofmetaphor answers the question of how well worn or how deeply entrenched ametaphor is in everyday use by ordinary people for everyday purposes. Conceptualmetaphors, as well as metaphorical linguistic expressions that derive from them,are considered highly conventionalizedif speakers use them naturally and effortlessly for their normal, everydaypurposes when they talk about such concepts as argument, love, socialorganizations, life, and so on. For example, conceptual metaphor socialorganizations are plants and deriving metaphorical linguisticexpression The company is growing fast; ideas are food: I can’t digest all these facts.
Theories are buildings: We have to construct a new theory. Thepreceding examples are worn or even clichéd to the extent where most speakerswould not even notice that they use metaphor when they use the expression construct in connection with theories, grow in connection with a company, or digest in connection with ideas. All metaphors can be more or less conventional. Highlyconventional metaphors are at one end of what we can call the scale of conventionality.
At the opposite end of the scale, wefind highly unconventional metaphors. E.g., (1) He had a head start in life and (2) Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less travelled by, and that has madeall the difference. Both of these examples are linguistic metaphors thatmanifest the same conceptual metaphor life is a journey.
While the example(1) is widely used in Englishlanguage, example (2) employslinguistic expressions from the journeydomain that have not been conventionalized for speakers of English; “two roads diverged” and “I took the one road less travelled by”are not worn out, clichéd linguistic expressions to talk about life, i.e. theyare highly unconventional. 2)The Cognitive Function of Metaphor – the cognitive function of metaphor is the functionthat a metaphor performs for ordinary people in thinking about and seeing the world.Conceptual metaphors may be classified based on the cognitive functions thatthey execute, there has been distinguished three general kinds of conceptualmetaphor: structural, ontological, and orientational. 1. Structural – in this kind of metaphor, the source domain providesa relatively rich knowledge structure for the target concept.
I.e., thecognitive function of these metaphors is to allow speakers to understand target(a) by means of the structure ofsource (b).
E.g., The time (a) is motion (b).
By comparing timewith the motion, speakers observe thattime can pass, stop, come, fly by, etc.I.e., speakers are provided with knowledge about the target (time).
2. Ontological – Ontology is a branch of philosophy that has to dowith the nature of existence. The cognitive jobof ontological metaphors is to “merely” give a new ontological status togeneral categories of abstract target concepts and to bring about new abstractentities. What this means is that we imagine our experiences in terms ofobjects in general, without specifying exactly what kind of object is meant. Forexample, we do not really know what the mindis, but we conceive of it as an object, this way we can attempt to understandmore about it.
Another example is a computer,that is not a human being, however, it is given human-like qualities such as dying, working, etc. Personifyingnonhumans objects as humans, helps us understand them a little better.3. Orientational – cognitive job of orientational metaphors is to makea set of target concepts coherent in our conceptual system, most metaphors thatserve this function have to do with basic human spatial orientations, such asup-down, centre-periphery, and the like. “Coherence” simply means that certaintarget concepts tend to be conceptualized in a uniform manner. E.
g., thefollowing concept is characterized by an “upward” orientation, while their”opposite” receives a “downward” orientation. More is up; less is down: Speak up,please; Keep your voice down,please. 3)The Nature of Metaphor -metaphors may be based on knowledge and image.
In knowledge-based metaphors,basic knowledge structures constituted by some basic elements are mapped from asource to a target, as it has already been analysed in the present paper. In image-schema metaphor, another kind of conceptualmetaphor, it is not conceptual elements of knowledge that are mapped from asource to a target, but conceptual elements of image-schemas. Let us take thefollowing examples with the word out:pass out; space out; zone out; tune out;veg out; conk out; rub out; snuff out; out of order; be out of something.
Thesephrases have to do with events and states such as losing consciousness, lack ofattention, something breaking down, death, and absence of something. All ofthem indicate a negative state of affairs. More importantly, they maprelatively little from source to target. As the name implies, metaphors of thiskind have source domains that have the most basic image-schemas, such as theone associated with “out”. These basic image-schemas derive from our interactionswith the world: we explore physical objects by contact with them; we movearound the world; we experience physical forces affecting us; and we try toresist these forces, such as when we walk against the wind. Interactions suchas these occur repeatedly in human experience.
These basic physical experiencesgive rise to what are called image-schemas, and the image-schemas structuremany of our abstract concepts metaphorically. 4)Levels of Generality of Metaphor – conceptual metaphors can be categorized in accordance with the levelof generality at which they are found. They can be generic-level or specific-levelones. Examples of specific-level metaphors are life is a journey, an argument is a war,ideas are food, and so on. Life,journey, argument, war, ideas, and food are specific-levelconcepts. Schematic structures underlying them are filled in a detailedway.
Meanwhile, concepts such as events,actions, generic, and specific are all generic-levelconcepts. Only minimal number of properties defines them, hence we could saythat they are characterized by extremely skeletal structures. For example, inthe case of events, an entity experiencessome kind of modification influenced by some external force.
There is a varietyof event kinds: burning, inflation, freezing,the wind blowing loving, getting sick, dying, and more. All of them are instancesof the generic concept of the event.