METAPHORICAL SCENARIOS IN THE 2004 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR PERSUASION
Romanian Academy, Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Romania
Metaphorical scenarios used in American political speeches to frame particular subjects have been the topic of several papers (Lakoff 1992; Musolff 1995; Cienki 2005) which attempted to uncover their underlying meaning and their manipulative or persuasive force. My paper analyses the way in which G. W. Bush and John Kerry made use of these scenarios during the 2004 Presidential Debates in their attempt to promote their own programmes and to dismantle that of their opponent, with the obvious aim to persuade the American citizens.
The analysis has revealed that the two candidates made recurrent use of these scenarios to frame various topics, particularly those under hot debate, such as the War in Iraq or the War on Terror. The main purpose of my analysis, however, has been to identify a potential reason why candidates make appeal to such metaphorical scenarios in the first place. One answer may be that these scenarios contribute to the relevance of their message, which in turn may contribute to persuasion, the main intention behind what politicians say and do. The theoretical framework underlying my analysis combines elements from relevance theory with aspects of framing and verbalisation, and proposes an interdisciplinary approach to the phenomenon of persuasion.
Key words: Relevance theory; Metaphorical scenarios; Framing; Persuasion.
Barsalou, L.W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and cognition, 11, 211-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968
Barsalou, L.W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development (pp. 101-140). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cienki, A. (2005). Metaphor in the ”Strict Father“ and ”Nurturant Parent“. Cognitive models: Theoretical issues raised in an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.2.279
Campbell, P.N. (1973). A rhetorical view of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 284-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637309383177
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Chafe, W. (1977a). Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge In F. Roy (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 41-55). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Chafe, W. (1977b). The recall and verbalization of past experience. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory: Vol. 2 (pp. 15-46). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 339-382. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.021
Davis, S. (1980). Perlocutions. In J.R. Searle, et al. (Eds.), Speech act theory and Pragmatics (pp. 37-57). Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.
Fillmore, Ch. (1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.143-166). New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-137). Seul: Hamshin.
Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
Gaines, R.N. (1979). Doing by saying: toward a theory of perlocution. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 207-21.
Gu, Y. (1993). The impasse of perlocution. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 405-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90038-Q
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106
Kurzon, D. (1998). The speech act status of incitement: Perlocutionary acts revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 571-596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00083-0
Lakoff, G. (1992). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify the Gulf War. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution. Studies in honour of Ren Dirven (pp. 463-481). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marcu, D. (2000). Perlocutions: The Achilles’ heel of speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1719-1741. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00121-6
McGuire, W.J. (1969.) The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.). The Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 3 (pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Musolff, A. (1995). Promising to end a war = language of peace? The rhetoric of Allied news management in the Gulf War. In C. Schäffner, & A.L. Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp. 93-110). Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Niculescu-Gorpin, A.-G. (2007). Relevance and persuasion. The case of the 2004 US and Romanian presidential debates. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Niculescu-Gorpin, A.-G. (2008). Ad hoc concepts and argumentation in political debates, L’analisi linguistica e letteraria, XVI, special issue Word meaning in argumentative dialogue, 2, 777-787.
Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from www.oed.com
Sandell, R. (1977). Linguistic style and persuasion. University of Stockholm: Psychological Laboratories.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Second Edition, 1995 (with preface), Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2006). A deflationary account of metaphor. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 18, 171-203.
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 15, 273-291.
Wilson, D. (2004). Unpublished Lectures. Pragmatics online Course, UCL.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property' issue, Mind & Language, 21, 404-433. Retrieved June, 25th, 2008, from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/deirdre/papers.html
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230-259). London: Palgrave. Retrieved from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/deirdre/papers.html
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In E. Ward, & L. Horns. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved June, 25th, 2008, from www.dan.sperber.com.
Zhu, Ch. (2004). Repetition and signification. A study of textual accountability and perlocutionary effect in literary translation. Target, 16(2), 227–252.
Zimbardo, P.G., & Leippe, M.R. (1991). The Psychology of attitude change and social influence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
How to cite this article: Niculescu-Gorpin, A.G. (2010). Metaphorical scenarios in the 2004 American presidential debates and their relevance for persuasion. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 3, 25-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2010.3.2
For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en