Metaphor Evaluation of Leadership Styles: A Case Study of Presidential New Year Greetings

• Authors: Liudmila Arcimaviciene , Vida Jonaitiene
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

By using the analytical framework of Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) and procedurally employing Pragglejaz Group’s Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), this study aims at evaluating metaphor use in the narrative of presidential New Year greetings of twelve political leaders. The evaluation of the identified 409 metaphoric clusters has demonstrated that different political leaders evoke two power skills within the ethical dimension: hard and soft. Furthermore, it has been clarified that hard power leadership is more varied at its three conceptual levels of semantic representation: pragmatic, intermediary and transactional. The clarified metaphoric utterances have revealed that female leaders are more democratic in their conceptualisation and linguistic preferences than their male counterparts, i.e. the male leaders tend to prioritise competitive forcefulness over cognitive empathy and community concerns, while the female leaders tend to emphasize the importance of a unified and compassionate approach to solving social and political problems.

Keywords

EN

Critical metaphor analysis; leadership styles; political discourse

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Open Linguistics
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 1

Dates

received

2014-10-16

accepted

2015-02-19

online

2015-04-01

Contributors

author

Liudmila Arcimaviciene

• Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

author

Vida Jonaitiene

• Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

References

• Cameron, Deborah. 2006. On Language and Sexual Politics. London & New York: Routledge.
• Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2009. Metaphor and Political Communication. In: Musolff, Andreas, Jörg Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97-115.
• Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Chilton, Paul. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.
• Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group): London and New York.
• Chilton, Paul. 2005. Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In: de Saussure, Louis, Peter Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 5–45.
• Chitlon, Paul, Christina Schäffner. 2011. Discourse and Politics.In: Van Dijk, Teun(ed.),Discourse Studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE, pp. 303-331.
• Curtis, Natalie Hansen. 2009. Gender, Politics & Political Cartoons (Opinion article).http://teamboldandbeautiful.weebly.com/gender-women--femininity.html (accessed 04.08.11)
• De Beauvoir, Simone. 1997. The Second Sex.Vintage: London.
• Flack, Jessica, Frans De Wahl. 2002. Being nice is not a building block of morality. In: Katz, Leonard, D. (ed.), Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Imprint Academic, pp. 67-79.
• Gibbs, Raymond, W. 1999. Researching metaphor. In: Cameron, Lynne, Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 29–47.
• Grady, Joseph. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In: Gibbs, Raymond, Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79-100.
• Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the Brain. Metaphor and Hidden Ideology.John Benjamin Publishing Company: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. [WoS]
• Janda, Laura. A. 2000. Cognitive Linguistics.Available at http://www.indiana.edu/slavkonf/SLING2K/pospapers/janda.pdg.Accessed on March 25, 2013.
• Johnson, Mark. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago University Press, Chicago and London.
• Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: a Critical Cognitive Study. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
• Koller, Veronika.2009. Missions and Empires: Religious and Political Metaphors in Corporate Discourse. In: Musolff, Andreas, Jörg Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 116-135.
• Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: a Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Kövecses, Zoltan. 2009. Metaphor, Culture, and Discourse: The Pressure of Coherence. In: Musolff, Andreas, Jörg Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11-25.
• Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books: New York.
• Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago &London: Chicago University Press.
• Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
• Lakoff, George. 2006. Whose Freedom? The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea. Macmillan.
• Lakoff, G. 2011. The New Obama Narrative./http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-new-obama-narrative_b_815326.htmlS (accessed 05.07.12).
• Lazar, Michelle,Cheris Kramarae. 2011. Gender and Power in Discourse. In: van Dijk, Teun (ed.), Discourse Studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE, pp. 217-241.
• Mey, Jacob. L. 2006. Metaphors and activity. Essays on Metaphor in Language and Thought, special edition of D.E.L.T.A 22, pp. 45–66.
• Mussolf, Andreas. 2006. Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. In Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1), pp. 23-38. [Crossref][WoS]
• Nerlich, Brigitte, Nelya Koteyko. 2009. MRSA – Portrait of a Superbug: A Media Drama in Three Acts. In: Musolff, Andreas, Jörg Zinken (eds.),Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 153-173.
• Nye, Joseph. S. 2008. The Powers to Lead. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Pragglejaz Group, 2007. MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1), pp. 1–39 (accessed 12.06.12).
• Turner, Mark. 2001. Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. In: Stefanowitsch, Anatol, Stefan Thomas Gries (eds.), Trends in Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: DE GRUYTER, pp. 1-17.
• van Dijk, Teun A. 2011. Discourse and Ideology. In: Van Dijk, Teun (ed.),Discourse Studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE, pp. 379-408.
• Zinken, Jörg, Andreas Musolff. 2009. A Discourse-Centred Perspective on Metaphorical Meaning and Understanding.In: Musolff, Andreas, Jörg Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-11.
• Weatherall, Ann. 2002. Gender, Language, and Discourse. New York: Routledge.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/opli-2015-0006