In:Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 237–258
Draining the swamp
Creative figurative language in political discourse
Published online: 28 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.10ber
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.10ber
Abstract
This chapter examines the use of the expression to drain the swamp, whose meaning is created in conceptual blending, and the creative figurative language produced by the elaboration, modification, and reinterpretation of the blend itself in the contemporary American political discourse. This paper aims to show that creative figurative language can be used in different ways by members of a discourse community to achieve various rhetorical goals and discourse coherence. Specifically, applying conceptual blending theory, this paper analyzes innovative conceptual blends used to keep political discussions alive and be rhetorically effective. In addition, such creative blends also provide discourse coherence at the intertextual level.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Conceptual blending theory
- 3.Methodology
- 4.Draining the swamp
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (55)
Berberović, S. (2013). Magic tricks with race cards: Conceptual integration theory and political discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 14(2–3), 307–321.
Berberović, S., & Mujagić, M. (2017). A marriage of convenience or an amicable divorce: Metaphorical blends in the debates on Brexit. ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 1–24.
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–249.
Burgers, C., Jong Tjien Fa, M., & de Graaf, A. (2019). A tale of two swamps: Transformations of a metaphorical frame in online partisan media. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 57–66.
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
(2018). Analysing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor 2nd edition. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as talk and text: Analytic approaches to political discourse. (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coulson, S. (1996). The Menendez Brothers virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67–81). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
(2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2002). What’s so funny: Conceptual blending in humorous examples. Available at: [URL]
(2005). Extemporaneous blending: Conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.
(2006). Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187–210). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2006). Purple persuasion: Conceptual blending and deliberative rhetoric. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Coulson, S., & Pascual E. (2006). For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 153–181.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dorst, A. G. (2017). Textual patterning of metaphor. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 196–210). London: Taylor & Francis.
(2007). Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 351–376). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 283–304.
(2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
(2006). Conceptual integration networks. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 303–371), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reprint of (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Conceptual blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hidalgo-Downing, L. (2016). Metaphor and metonymy. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 107–128), London/New York: Routledge.
Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.) (2008). Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture, universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2009). Aspect of metaphor in discourse. Belgrade English language and literature studies (BELLS), 1, 81–95.
(2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2016). A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2018). Metaphor in media language and cognition: A perspective from conceptual metaphor theory. Lege artis, 3(1), 124–141.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.
Musolff, A. (2000). Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 216–229.
(2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London & Oxford & New York: Bloomsbury.
Oakley, T. (2011). Conceptual integration. In J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, vol. 6 (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2008). Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley, & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Oakley, T., & Pascual, E. (2017). Conceptual blending theory. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, D. L. (2017a). Metaphorical stories in discourse. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2017b). Contextual activation of story simulation in metaphor comprehension. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 220–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2010). Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction, 3(2), 250–274.
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59.
Turner, M. (2007). Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 377–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2014). The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.