1. Introduction
The interdisciplinary nature of academic research has gained its momentum in the twenty-first century, when collaboration across disciplines is no longer viewed as a deviation but rather as a collective attempt of cross-disciplinary cooperation and inter-contextualization of varied methods and approaches. Despite such variability, the uniqueness of this common aim is reflected in the need to approach a phenomenon from a multitude of perspectives and to evaluate its dynamics in the socially constructed reality. This is exactly the case with metaphor analysis in the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Studies and Cognitive Science. The combination of cognitive and linguistic studies has created both theoretical and empirical ground for viewing metaphor as both a kind of reasoning based on the underlying embodied experience (Feldman, Reference Feldman2006; Gibbs, Reference Gibbs1992; Johnson, Reference Johnson1987; Lakoff & Johnson, Reference Lakoff and Johnson1999) and a social linguistic act in the communicative setting (Charteris-Black, Reference Charteris-Black2004; Chilton, Reference Chilton2004; Goatly, Reference Goatly2007).
To date, metaphor has become a tool, by which evaluations about various discourse genres and their representative communities are being offered. One of the most intensely analyzed discourse genres is political communication. The significance of metaphor in political discourse has been tackled from various perspectives. Metaphor has been viewed as a cognitive tool of manipulative practices (Lakoff, Reference Lakoff1991; Mio, Reference Mio1997; Turner, Reference Turner2001), or as a hidden ideological pattern (Goatly, Reference Goatly2007; Stockwell, Reference Stockwell, Combrink and Biermann2007), or as an attempt to create myths and popularize political ideology (Charteris-Black, Reference Charteris-Black2011), or as an intrinsic part of morality upon which political preferences can be declared or inherently represented (Lakoff, Reference Lakoff1996). Despite the overall agreement that metaphor plays a crucial role in creating political reality and expressing it as a part of political mythology, there is an obvious fragmentation in the methodology and approaches of how to analyze and discern political metaphor effects as part of wider social and political context.
Political Metaphor Analysis: discourse and scenarios offers an integrated ‘scenario approach’ to analyzing political metaphor in a wider political context by taking into consideration its systematicity in synchronic and diachronic data samples. The book is divided into nine main sections, with an introduction provided in the first section, and conclusions in the last, while the remainder of the book consists of the analysis of the most prominent political metaphors supported by empirical data samples. Each of these will be overviewed in more detail in the following section.
2. Overview
Part One or the ‘Introduction’ presents an overview of the underlying ideas of CMT (Conceptual Metaphor Theory) and CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis), within which the integrated model of analyzing metaphors in terms of the entrenched scenarios and their socio-political effects has been developed. The purpose of the ‘metaphor scenario’ approach is to tackle the questions that still remain unanswered and require more clarification. By providing specific examples of conventionalized political metaphor usage, the author illustrates that metaphor and its political meaning do not always correlate in terms of socio-political effects. There are cases when political metaphors are literally understood and politically enacted, just as there are instances when political metaphors remain on the ‘threshold’ of rhetoric and do not have any socio-political consequences. Related to this ambiguity between metaphor meaning and its socio-political effects, the theoretical model of ‘metaphor scenario’ analysis, based on both synchronically and diachronically documented metaphor usage, is proposed. This is done through the empirical analysis of the four most prevalent source domains in political discourse, i.e., war, family, body, and person, presented in subsequent sections (2–8).
In ‘Section 2’, the conventional metaphor of politics as war is analyzed by implementing the ‘metaphor scenario’ approach in the political context of diplomatic relations between the UK and the EU. The systematic use of the war metaphor is tested in the research corpora (i.e., eurometa and two computer-based corpora) by applying pragglejaz mip (-vu) as an identification method of linguistic metaphors. It is shown how the systematic analysis of metaphor use can help to reconstruct the dynamicity of the underlying narrative of diplomatic relations between the UK and the EU since the 1990s. It is determined that the narrative does not only follow the general metaphorical pattern of military framing, such as ‘war declaration’, ‘fight/battle’, and ‘outcome’, but also establishes an ideological framework that performs an evaluative function.
In ‘Section 3’, another conventional metaphor of nation is a family in the EU political context is discussed and empirically tested in the research corpora, in particular as to whether it can be related to the morality systems of the two family models as distinguished by Lakoff (Reference Lakoff1996). Instead of approaching this metaphor through one source domain (family) that can be reflected via different morality metaphors (Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent), Andreas Musolff offers to approach the family metaphor through the discourse-based, culturally and historically mediated, ‘metaphor scenarios’, the analysis of which can shed more light on its interpretative and ideologically grounded aspects, if any. In the EU political context, three kinds of family scenarios were established: (i) parent–child relationship between the EU member states; (ii) the married life of the EU couple; and (iii) the love/marriage relationship between Britain and the EU. The established recurrent metaphorical patterns give evidence to the fact that political representation is developed through the narrative of ‘mini-melodramas’, whereby political agents and their roles are associated with deeply personalized family relationships. This can serve the function of the simplification of political roles and political outcomes, as well as having a certain emotional appeal (e.g., Angela Merkel’s metaphorical Mutti role with regard to Germany and the EU). The findings only partially support Lakoff’s (Reference Lakoff1996) binary distinction of two family models for their partial representation and insufficient evidence of recurrent expressions.
In ‘Section 4’, the use of the ‘Britain at the heart of Europe’ metaphorical pattern is tested in shorter and longer time periods in the political context of British and EU diplomatic relations. The analysis of the data shows that the pragmatic and rhetorical effects of this metaphor scenario do not necessarily correlate with the positive evaluation grounded in the default version of this metaphor. There are instances of use when the positive bias of the same metaphor scenario can be reversed to the negative evaluation, upon which a newly transformed metaphorical blend can emerge and set a new standard for metaphor evaluation. Furthermore, it is also argued that the systematic analysis of recurrent metaphorical patterns via the scenario approach in different periods of time can help to deconstruct socially shared discourse-historical knowledge.
In ‘Section 5’, the diachronic and linguistic development of the nation is a body metaphor and the relationship between the default and marked versions of the body metaphor are tackled. Evidence is provided for the historic development of the nation as body metaphor scenario from ancient times to its modern-day political use. Despite its conceptual variations (theological and political), it is noted that the use of the body as a source domain underlies the common idea of hierarchical power relations within a state. It is also observed how the same metaphor scenario can have culture-specific variations in the English, German, and French data samples. To date, British political discourse seems to be particularly characterized by the specific scenario of body aesthetic with reference to individual politicians. By comparison, the modern German political use of this metaphor scenario has a characteristic feature of historical-ideological connotation related to Nazism, one of the functions of which is to critically raise public awareness of an extreme right-wing political stance and to resist an idea of ‘one people’ in favour of ‘multicultural society’. In the French case, it is determined that the use of the BODY metaphor evokes three specific scenarios: society, politics, and electorate.
In ‘Section 6’, the parasite on the body of the people metaphor scenario, as one of the most prominent and politically effective, is analyzed from the discourse-historical perspective. It is argued that the parasite metaphor scenario has undergone processes of re-metaphorization in its two main stages: at its initial stage the social meaning of ‘parasite’ had been mapped onto the biological domain in reference to bacteria, while later this process was reversed, when the bacteria frame was evoked in the political context with reference to people. More importantly, the political meaning of the parasite metaphor is discussed in terms of its social effects, whereby racist and xenophobic ideologies can be created and enacted. As an example, the use of the parasite metaphor is analyzed in the context of press and online forum (i.e., blogs and online fora) samples with reference to immigrants. The findings reveal that despite the general trend of activating this metaphor across three online genres, differences are found in its realized frequency and intensity. Moreover, the specific scenario of the parasite metaphor is predominantly realized in the framework of the social narrative, while its biological counterpart is not sufficiently marked. By the analysis of the parasite metaphor, the relationship between metaphor use and discourse scenario is shown via argumentative coherence in reinforcing a specific social narrative.
In ‘Section 7’, another politically and ideologically significant conceptual metaphor of nations as persons is analyzed by implementing the ‘metaphor scenario’ approach. This metaphor is well illustrated in terms of its representational aspect as employed by political agents for positioning themselves as moral authorities, whose political decision-making on behalf of the nation has a legitimate status. By analyzing how the metaphor scenario is enacted by Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in their annual UN speeches, it is determined that the legitimacy of national identities is contested by both leaders and eventually leads to the prevalence of the ‘duel’ scenario and deprives the two sides of the possibility to overcoming their political and ideological differences in a non-conflicting way. The metaphor scenario of the person metaphor thus provides the receivers with the intended public image enacted by political agents. In addition, the use of the Social Face metaphor scenario is paralleled with socio-psychological Face Theory (Goffman, Reference Goffman1967), as both are generally enacted through positive self-representation at the expense of negative other-presentation. It is argued that the Social Face metaphor can become politically successful if it fits well into the narrative of the established social perceptions, and this is exemplified by two case studies: the use of the Hun metaphor by Wilhelm II, and metaphor scenarios in the film of The Eternal Jew.
In ‘Section 8’, the social perceptions of the nation as body and nation as person metaphors are considered by analyzing how recipients with different cultural backgrounds elucidate these metaphors, and what kind of specific scenarios they reproduce in their responses. It is observed that the understanding of both the body and person metaphors is more varied and culture-specific rather than mechanically construed and accepted automatically. The major argument presented, supported by the data findings, is the plausibility of the manipulatively ideological nature of conceptual metaphor and its conventionalized usage in political discourse. Even though the data show that the respondents enact the socially dominant metaphor scenarios, there is sufficient evidence of reflecting and questioning metaphor validity in the responses provided. Hence, the social entrenchment of the political metaphor does not necessitate its ideological acceptance on the part of the receiver, and can indicate the informant’s critical awareness of political stereotypes.
Finally, the conclusions are provided (‘Section 9’), where the (i) nature and (ii) applicability of the scenario approach within cognitive metaphor studies are reinstated. The systematic analysis of recurrent metaphorical patterns is of a multifunctional nature, as it allows a researcher to determine argumentative, narrative, and ideological values. The applicability factor refers to the metaphor scenario situatedness within social and historical discursive contexts. To be more precise, it is emphasized that the scenario approach helps to determine the degree of entrenchment in socio-cultural contexts by tracing its historical re-metaphorization processes, if any. In addition, the scenario approach can help to discern whether the recurrent use of certain metaphors can have an interactive appeal on the hearers/readers, and how metaphor interpretations are elicited in different socio-cultural contexts. Based on the above assumptions, four levels of ‘metaphor understanding’ are distinguished: (i) metaphor reception of the target domain; (ii) semantic reconstruction of transferred meaning; (iii) interpretation of the transferred meaning; and (iv) ideological acceptance. This kind of analysis is particularly relevant for political metaphors whereby their social significance and ideological dangerousness can be highlighted.
3. Evaluation
This book is timely in the most complementary sense that it helps to bridge the gap between socio-political, linguistic, and cultural studies as related to political metaphor analysis.
From the perspective of the social sciences, this book offers a comprehensive approach to analyzing political metaphor, by taking into account socio-political and historical contexts, the importance of which are continuously emphasized by their representatives. From the perspective of linguistic studies, this book offers one of the most valuable insights – a well-defined and well-supported paradigm for analyzing a linguistic phenomenon that can have socio-political implications. From the perspective of cultural insights, this book provides sufficient evidence of re-metaphorization processes that can be caused by hearers’/readers’ culture-specific endorsements of metaphor scenarios. To summarize, I would argue that this book provides metaphor analysis with a missing ‘slot’ in the metaphor analysis ‘puzzle’. Among metaphor analysts, there is a never-ending discussion about which approach is more adequate – ‘top-down’ (from concept to metaphorical wording) or ‘bottom-up’ (from metaphorical wording to concepts). Now, it can be argued that the scenario approach offers that intermediary link between metaphorical lexis and concepts (or vice versa) and helps to discern a recurrent pattern in metaphorical lexical usage, and more importantly its socio-political value, that can affect the conceptual level as well and determine the transfer of a conceptual domain.
Thus, anyone embarking on the study of political metaphor would benefit immensely from reading through this book to gain a grounding in how the scenario approach can be implemented in political metaphor research. To date, with the rise of populist metaphors in political discourse, the application of the scenario approach would do particularly well, and there are at least two reasons why. First, the need for the scenario approach can be motivated by the complexity of populist and other political metaphors and the possibility of the reversed response to the reproduced metaphors. Second, by implementing the scenario approach, metaphor understanding is perceived at different levels that have to be taken into account, while discerning the effect of the reproduced (and elucidated) metaphor scenario.
Another valuable contribution of this book is the variability of data samples provided to test the hypothesis of politically successful metaphor scenarios. The empirical part can meet the interest of any scholar by covering data samples of media texts, blogs, online comments, historical and modern political speeches, movie analysis, and questionnaires. Last but not least, as a reader I was deeply affected by the scenario endorsed by the author himself: despite the complexity of his academic research, overall the writer’s tone is very reader-friendly and spiced with the subtle flavour of humour, intricate detail, and linguistic elegance that makes the reading a joyful journey of new discoveries in personal and academic terms.
That said, as a metaphor analyst myself, I would definitely recommend this book to both my colleagues and students, and because it is here that we can find this well-integrated approach to metaphor analysis, labelled as a ‘scenario approach’, providing us with explanations and elucidations of metaphorical meanings (both lexical and conceptual) that can (or cannot) have socio-political effects.
