Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.535–566

A comparative critical metaphor analysis on the concept of democracy in Turkish and American English

 | Amasya University
This corpus-based study concentrates on the metaphorical conceptualizations of the concept of ‘democracy’ in Turkish and American English to find out how this socio-political term is conceptually represented in the minds of Turkish and American speakers. The database consists of 4000 concordance lines that were extracted from four different corpora: TNCv3.0, TS Columns, COCA, and NOW. Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, 2004) and MIP (Pragglejaz, 2007) were employed in the identification, explanation and interpretation of metaphors. Findings indicate various linguistic metaphors that can be grouped under several source domain categories including physical object, conflict and living organism as the most frequent ones. The most widespread metaphor in Turkish is democracy is a destination, whereas it is democracy is war in American English, embodying two different worldviews. The study proposes that the way the concept of democracy is composed has a role in manipulating people’s perception of the type of a democracy they are ruled by.
Keywords: critical metaphor analysis, democracy, Turkish, American English, corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical grounding
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus data
    • 3.2Metaphor identification procedure
    • 3.3Taxonomy of metaphorical source domains
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1Physical object
    • 4.2Conflict
    • 4.3Living organism
    • 4.4Journey-destination
    • 4.5Construction-building
    • 4.6Machine
    • 4.7Container-place
    • 4.8Religion
    • 4.9Human body
    • 4.10School-teaching
    • 4.11Theatre-game-sports
    • 4.12Instrument-tool
    • 4.13Economy-business
    • 4.14Nature-geography
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00073.bas
References (43)
References
Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A. et al.. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the 8th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2012) (pp. 3223–3227). Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(6), 563–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor (2nd ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild Advanced English Dictionary. [URL]
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). [URL]
Crick, B. (2002). Democracy: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., Frank, R. M., & Ilie, C. (Eds.) (2001). Language and ideology, Volume II: Descriptive cognitive approaches. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Frank, R. M., & Pütz, M. (Eds.) (2003). Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideology, metaphors and meanings. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğan, İ. (2002). Modern toplumda vatandaşlık, demokrasi ve insan hakları: İnsan haklarının kültürel temelleri (3rd ed.) Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, E. S., & Page, B. I. (2018). The struggle for democracy. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
(2014). Politics at play: Game metaphors in Spanish political discourse. Hipertexto, 191, 132–151.Google Scholar
Howe, N. (1988). Metaphor in contemporary American political discourse. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(2), 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S. (1991). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kongar, E. (2007). Demokrasimizle yüzleşmek. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1994). Tocqueville’s passionate “Beast”: A linguistic analysis of the concept of American democracy. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(2), 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Nation-building through metaphor. In R. Digonnet (Ed.), Inhibiting language, constructing language – Habiter la langue, construire la langue (pp.37–48). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Peace Research, 231, 25–32.Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Moral politics: How liberal and conservatives think (2nd ed). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. Vermont: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
(2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist’s guide to your brain and its politics. USA: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Malan, S. (2008). Conceptual metaphors in South African political speeches (1994–2001). Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 381, 73–106.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Nations as persons: Collective identities in conflict. In B. Bös, S. Kleinke, S. Mollin & N. Hernández (Eds.), The discursive construction of identities on- and offline: Personal – Group – Collective (pp. 249–266). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
News on the Web (NOW). [URL]
Nicolae, A. O. (2014). Metaphorical perspectives on democracy in the UK and Romania. In I. Boldea (Ed.), Globalization and intercultural dialogue: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 386–396). Tîrgu-Mureş: Arhipelag XXI Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
TS Columns Corpus V2. [URL]
Turkish National Corpus (TNCv3.0). [URL]
Türk Dil Kurumu, Çevrimiçi Türkçe Sözlük (Turkish Language Institution Online Turkish Dictionary) [URL]
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Inya, Onwu
2022. ‘As democracy grows’. Metaphor and the Social World 12:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo

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