Cover not available

In:Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 85–106

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Political speeches

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

ORCiD logo with link | Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.04tin
Abstract
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.
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
References (32)
References
Aristotle. (1991). (trans. G. Kennedy). On Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Beaugrande, R., Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative Governance. Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975). Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell Wahrgenommene Figuren: Studien In Psychologischer Analyse. Kobenhaven: Gyldendalske boghandel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tincheva, N. (2013). Political speeches, text structure, manipulation. Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences, 1(1), 84–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Text Structure: A Window Into Discourse, Context And Mind. Sofia: POLIS Publ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Blurring the Boundaries between Real Worlds, Discourse Worlds and Text Worlds. Slavia Meridionalis, 21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, S. P. (2018). Cognitive science and the social. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.) (1997). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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
2025. Political language gaffes and the importance of Hearer’s meaning. Pragmatics and Society 16:3 ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue