Article published In: Concentric
Vol. 48:2 (2022) ► pp.212–248
democracy in Taiwanese presidential inaugural addresses
Metaphors, source domains, scenarios, and ideologies
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 29 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.22006.hsu
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.22006.hsu
Abstract
This study explored metaphorical expressions related to democracy in 15 Taiwanese presidential inaugural
addresses. The source domain concepts mapped to understand democracy were examined and the relationship between these
metaphorical expressions and ideologies was teased out by employing the discourse-historical approach. Our analysis demonstrates
that various source domain concepts were utilized to discuss democracy, and most newly-emerged types occurred after the
success of the first direct presidential election in 1996. A more detailed analysis of the source domain elements showed that
different scenarios were highlighted, reflecting specific ideologies embedded along with the social, historical and political
situation.
Keywords: democracy, metaphor, source domain, scenario, ideology, political discourse
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Metaphors and ideologies in political discourse
- 1.2Discourse-historical approach (DHA)
- 1.3Historical and social-political background related to democratization in Taiwan
- 2.Data and methodology
- 2.1Data
- 2.2Identification of the metaphorical expressions and metaphorical keywords
- 2.3Source domain and scenario identification
- 2.4Interpreting the variation of metaphor use and the ideologies
- 3.Findings
- 3.1Source domains
- 3.2Scenarios
- 3.3Embedded ideologies
- 4.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- List of abbreviations
References
References (44)
Ahrens, Kathleen, and Menghan Jiang. 2020. Source
domain verification using corpus-based tools. Metaphor and
Symbol 35.1:43–55.
Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michal Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. 2008. A
useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees
and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse &
Society 19.3:273–306.
Burgers, Christian. 2016. Conceptualizing
change in communication through metaphor. Journal of
Communication 66.2:250–265.
Burgers, Christian, and Kathleen Ahrens. 2020. Change
in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses
(1790–2014). Applied
Linguistics 41.2:260–279.
Chao, Linda, and Ramon H. Myers. 1994. The
first Chinese democracy: Political development of the Republic of China on Taiwan,
1986–1994. Asian
Survey 34.3:213–230.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2019. Metaphors
of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake? Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Cibulskienė, Jurga. 2012. The
development of the journey metaphor in political discourse: Time-specific changes. Metaphor and
the Social
World 2.2:131–153.
Dorst, Aletta G., and Anna G. Kaal. 2012. Metaphor
in discourse: Beyond the boundaries of MIP. Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and
Communication, ed. by Fiona MacArthur, José Luis Oncins-Martínez, Manuel Sánchez-García and Ana María Piquer-Píriz, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dreyfuss, Caroline. 2015. Taiwanese
student sit-in for democratic reform (Wild Lily Movement)
1990. Retrieved June 27,
2022, from [URL]
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing
the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden
Ideology, vol. 231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Heywood, Andrew. 2017. Political
Ideologies: An Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Huang, Chu-Ren, and Shu-Kai Hsieh. 2010. Infrastructure
for Cross-lingual Knowledge Representation – Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic
Studies. Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC
96-2411-H-003-061-MY3). Retrieved March
10, 2021, from [URL]
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrž, and David Tugwell. 2004. The
sketch engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International
Congress, ed. by Williams Geoffrey and Sandra Vessier, 105–116.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. The
Sketch Engine: Ten years
on. Lexicography 11:7–36.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Where
Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George. 2008. The
Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. New York: Penguin.
. 2014. The
All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the
Debate. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.
. 2016. Moral
Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd
edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Liu, Nancy. 2011. Taiwanese
Student Sit-in for Democratic Reform (Wild Lily Movement)
1990. Retrieved June 27,
2022, from [URL]
Lu, Louis Wei-Lun, and Kathleen Ahrens. 2008. Ideological
influence on building metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse &
Society 19.3:383–408.
. 2014. Metaphor
in the discourse-historical approach. Contemporary Critical Discourse
Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 45–66. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
. 2017. Truths,
lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and
Politics 16.5:641–657.
Niles, Ian, and Adam Pease. 2001. Towards
a standard upper ontology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in
Information Systems, vol. 2001, ed.
by Guarino Nicola, Barry Smith, and Christopher Welty, 2–9. Retrieved March 10, 2021, from [URL].
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A
method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol 22.1:1–39.
Reisigl, Martin. 2008. Rhetoric
of political speeches. Handbook of Communication in the Public
Sphere, vol. 41, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Veronika Koller, 243–270. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2009. The
discourse-historical approach (DHA). Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.
Reisigl, Martin. 2017. The
discourse-historical approach. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse
Studies, ed. by John Flowerdew and John E. Richardson, 44–59. New York: Routledge.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Tryntje Pasma. 2010. A
Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to
MIPVU, vol. 141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wachman, Alan. M. 1994. Taiwan: National Identity and
Democratization. Armonk, New York, and London: M.E. Sharpe.
Wei, Jennifer M., and Ren-feng Duann. 2019. Who
are we?: Contesting meanings in the speeches of national leaders in Taiwan during the authoritarian
period. Journal of Language and
Politics 18.5:760–781.
Wodak, Ruth. 1999. Critical
discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language & Social
Interaction 32.1–2:185–193.
. 2001. The
discourse-historical approach. Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. Critical
discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis 21:1–33.
Wodak, Ruth, and Salomi Boukala. 2015. European
identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse historical
approach. Journal of Language and
Politics 14.1:87–109.
