Cover not available
Part of
Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 85–106

Political speeches

Conceptual metaphor meets text worlds and gestalt psychology’s shifts in profiling

ORCID logo | Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’
This chapter offers a principled theoretical suggestion on the basis of which political speeches could be (re-)defined and the multiple simultaneous functions performed by a political speech could be analyzed. The chapter addresses issues concerning (a) the main types of functions a political speech can perform, (b) the cognitive explanation of the presence of these specific types of functions, and (c) the cognitive explanation of the simultaneous operation of these specific types of functions.
The main line of argumentation supports a view in which at least three cognitive mechanisms need to be taken into account in order for us to be able to explain what a political speech is and how it functions. These cognitive mechanisms include conceptual metaphoric transfer, TW and DW construction and overlaps, and gestalt shifts in profiling.
The theoretical model proposed derives from two questionnaire-based studies reported here. The model is subsequently verified against a dataset of 50 speeches by British and American politicians delivered within the span of the last 80 years.
Keywords: political speeches, political discourse, conceptual metaphor, text world, discourse world, gestalt, profiling shifts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The starting point: Two studies and a double mapping of the source – path – goal schema
    • 2.1Study 1 and study 2
    • 2.2The double mapping of the source – path – goal schema in political speeches
  • 3.Adding Text Worlds and Discourse Worlds to metaphoric mappings
  • 4.Adding profiling shifts to metaphoric mappings and World overlapping
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.04tin
References (32)
References
Aristotle. (1991). (trans. G. Kennedy). On Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. (2017). Toward a Neuro-cognitive Model of Socio-political Discourse. An Application to the Populist Discourse of Donald Trump. Langage et Société, 2, 237–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cillia, R., & Wodak, R. (2005). Political Discourse. In U. Ammon (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (pp. 1638–1652). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Beaugrande, R., Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2015). Textual Analysis. In M. Bevir, & Rhodes, R. A. W. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political Science (pp. 186–198). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grady, J., Taub, S., & Morgan, P. S. (1996). Primitive and Compound Metaphors. In Goldberg, A. (Ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 177–187). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative Governance. Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2018). Sociolinguistics vs Pragmatics. Where does the boundary lie. In C. Ilie, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its Interfaces (pp. 11–32). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pütz, M. J., Robinson, A., & Reif, M. (Eds.) (2014). Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Social and cultural variation in cognition and language use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, M. (2008). Analyzing Political Rhetoric. In Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (Eds.) Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 96–120). London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell Wahrgenommene Figuren: Studien In Psychologischer Analyse. Kobenhaven: Gyldendalske boghandel.Google Scholar
Tincheva, N. (2013). Political speeches, text structure, manipulation. Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences, 1(1), 84–92.Google Scholar
(2015). Text Structure: A Window Into Discourse, Context And Mind. Sofia: POLIS Publ.Google Scholar
(2021). Blurring the Boundaries between Real Worlds, Discourse Worlds and Text Worlds. Slavia Meridionalis, 21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. P. (2018). Cognitive science and the social. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.) (1997). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis. A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2018). The Interface Between Pragmatics and Internet-mediated Communication. Applications, Extensions and Adjustments. In C. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its Interfaces (pp. 267–290). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Tincheva, Nelly
2023. ‘Narrative structure’, ‘rhetorical structure’, ‘text structure’. English Text Construction 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Tincheva, Nelly
2024. Political language gaffes and the importance of Hearer’s meaning. Pragmatics and Society DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.