Anatoly P. Chudinov, Edward V. Budaev & Olga A. Solopova. 2023. Political Metaphorology: Cognitive and Discursive Studies 政治隐喻学 认知-话语研究. Peking University Press

Abstract

-

Full Text

Metaphor is among the most powerful cognitive techniques for conceptualization and categorization of the world, which forms the foundations of a conceptual system and facilitates comprehension of cultural peculiarities of a worldview.

The number of publications devoted to metaphors has increased since Lakoff and Johnson’s book Metaphors We Live By (1980). Scholars identify the peculiarities of metaphorical images in various discourse types, address issues in diachronic political metaphor research, focus on innovative interpretative metaphor use that changes the default meaning of well-established figurative constructions, and examine the interconnection between metaphor novelty and persuasiveness in communication(e.g., Hanne 2015, Leontovich et al. 2023, Musolff 2019, 2021, Ponton 2020, Solopova & Chudinov 2018, Solopova et al. 2023, Sun et al. 2021, among many others).

The book by Chudinov, Budaev and Solopova Political Metaphorology: Cognitive and Discursive Studies / 政治隐喻学：认知-话语研究 bridges the gap in the investigation of political metaphors in Chinese linguistics. What makes this book both educational and entertaining is that it provides a real journey into the world of the political metaphor from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, offering a systematic research of the traditions, current state, and future perspectives of the field. The book consists of three chapters.

The first chapter entitled Political Metaphor Studies: Traditions, Modern State and Perspectives / 第一节　概念隐喻理论的认知和修辞渊源 analyzes the cognitive and rhetorical origins of conceptual metaphor, considers political metaphor studies as a distinguished scientific field, and deals with the state of political metaphor studies at the present stage (2010–2020). According to the authors, political metaphor studies proceed from two major linguistic areas: metaphor studies and political linguistics. The confluence of these two research areas is connected both with the boom of studies benchmarking political communication and with the reinterpretation of metaphor and its role in structuring mental processes. The authors emphasize that political metaphor is an efficient tool for understanding, modeling and evaluating political processes and explore how and why different types of metaphors appear, as well asto what extent they reflect social psychology, political processes, and personal qualities of the participants.

The authors further turn to the discussion of political metaphor studies as a strategic pathway in modern linguistics. They argue that the following ground rules should be taken into account in the process of interpreting political metaphors:  (1) the primary role of the cognitive and discourse approach to studying metaphors; (2) the analysis of speech and language metaphors as a cohesive unity; (3) the examination of multimodal texts in which verbal and non-verbal components of communication interact; (4) the predominance of comparative studies when diverse metaphorical worldviews of different languages and cultures are analogized; (5) the explanatory character of modern metaphor studies, which means that political linguistics strives not only to fix the spot but to give them linguistic, political and discursive interpretations. The authors estimate the development of Russian political metaphor studies from 2010 up to 2020, singling out the cognitive, rhetorical, discursive, and semiotic trends as major approaches. In their thorough analysis, they suggest that the cognitive trend considers political metaphor to be a mental phenomenon that can be verbally represented in political texts; the rhetorical trend focuses on the analysis of political metaphor as a pragmatic tool of influence on the audience; the discursive trend involves the study of metaphor in a wide extralinguistic context in different political texts; and the semiotic trend studies metaphor as a sign in the political life of society.

In the second chapter, Theory and Practice of Comparative Study of Political Metaphors / 政治隐喻比较研究的理论与实践, the authors delve into the reflection of ethnic characteristics in the selection of metaphorical models in the process of describing and representing the world in various types of discourse. They emphasize the fact that any system of political metaphors is characterized, on the one hand, by a tendency to preserve its cultural identity, and on the other hand, by a tendency to interact with systems of political metaphors characteristic of other countries. As a result of their systematic investigation, the authors conclude that the four procedures of studying political metaphors comprise the analysis of  a) metaphors with a common target domain, b) metaphors with a common source domain, c) metaphors in the discourse of the addresser of communication; and  d) cognitive structures at the general level of categorization.

The chapter contains an interesting analysis of zoomorphic metaphors in the US and Russian mass-media covering the conflict in Syria in 2015–2016. Its results show that the structures of Russian and US metaphorical models are mostly isomorphic, with the exception of the animal care slot, which was observed in Russian media texts but was not found in American media. However, the analysis of zoomorphic metaphors and their role in the categorization of the sides in the Syrian conflict indicates significant differences in the vision of the situation and latent intentions which are not explicitly demonstrated but become evident through metaphorical models.

The third chapter, Theory and Practice of Studying Historical Changes of Political Metaphor Systems / 政治隐喻系统历史变迁研究的理论与实践, deals with diachronic examination of political metaphors. The authors describe the evolution of political metaphors over time, elucidate the development of metaphorical systems, rationalize the establishment of a new approach, which scrutinizes models and scenarios of the future basеd оn exploratory fоrecasts madе in political texts. The authors focus on diachronic metaphor analysis, the regularities of metaphorical language development, and the influence of discursive factors on the formation and change of metaphor. They clarify the principles of using historical documents corpora, online archives and libraries as efficient tools for conducting a diachronic analysis of metaphors in political discourse, stating that diachronic research methods in the digital era play a vital role as they enable the detection of historical changes in metaphor evolution, clarification of the essence of political metaphors in cultural and historical contexts, and determination of the factors that influence the formation and change of metaphors over time. Interpreting metaphors within the historical and cultural contexts in which they unfolded, locating them in time and place and understanding the way those factors shaped them contribute to a deeper understanding and interpretation of changes in the metaphorical systems.

The part that focuses on the portrayal of the image of the USSR in World War II media discourses is of special importance, as nowadays many political actors are trying to revise the outcomes of historical events in the context of information and psychological war, which has not only social and political but also language consequences (Kopnina et al. 2021). The authors further explore metaphorical images of Russia’s future, with a special focus on frequent metaphors that represent it and the senses deduced from them in Russian, American, and British discourses, as well as both best-case and worst-case metaphor scenarios. In fact, the problem they dwell upon is the role of metaphors in political forecasting. The authors emphasize that metaphor is a conceptual model that legislates and regulates our understanding of the future and convincingly prove that it often organizes  the content of the political forecast both formally and conceptually. They elicit  the discursive factors that shape the usage and senses of metaphors, demonstrate the interdependence between metaphors and images they generate and emphasize the role of the historical context in the process. It should be highlighted that on the whole, the third chapter contributes to the theory and practice of linguistics by elaborating on the notion of the linguistic political prognostics which is an interdisciplinary scientific field that integrates the ideas of cognitive linguistics, forecasting, political science, and metaphor studies.

It is also worthwhile discussing some limitations of the book. In my opinion, the book would be more ambitious in its aims if more attention were paid to Chinese political discourse. I believe that the book published in Chinese needs a section addressing the system of political metaphors employed in this language, especially taking into account the fact that Chinese is a highly metaphorical language. The book would benefit from a section presenting cognitive and discursive portraits of Chinese political leaders, both national and regional.

To summarize, the book by Chudinov, Budaev and Solopova Political Metaphorology: Cognitive and Discursive Studies / 政治隐喻学：认知-话语研究 is worth reading for many reasons, among which is the topicality of the issues touched upon in this book. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in political discourse, metaphor studies, and linguistics in general.  A Chinese proverb says: “He who asks a question might be a fool for five minutes; he who doesn’t ask a question remains a fool forever”. The authors have posed quite a number of questions in this book and have provided substantial and sophisticated answers to those who might challenge the notion of political metaphor studies. Moreover, the book is an excellent conversation starter for Russian and Chinese linguists which I hope will be continued.