The use of metaphor power indices for the analysis of speech impact in political public speeches

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The article examines the metaphor power related to the impact of public political speeches on the audience. The purpose of the study is to identify the potentially hidden speech impact of public discourse in order to understand the intentions of the speech messages’ authors. To that end, the aspects of metaphors under analysis include their density in the text, their intensity, functions and positions in the compositional structure of the text. The study tests the method of comprehensive analysis of metaphor power, which is based on the calculation of the corresponding indices MDI (Metaphor density index), MII (Metaphor intensity index), MfTI (Metaphor functional typology index) and MStI (Metaphor structural index). Each index is based on a mathematical formula: MDI reflects the average number of metaphors per a hundred words of the text; MII demonstrates the medium intensity of metaphors (new or conventional metaphors dominating the text); MfTI shows which functions are mainly performed by metaphors in the text; MStI represents the compositional parts of the text where the metaphors are concentrated. The hypothesis about the possibility of using such quantitative methods is tested on the material of three texts of public speeches by the political leaders of Russia, USA and China. The analysis shows that the greatest speech impact is achieved by the speech of the President of China distinguished by the highest metaphor density (4.07), and, the values of MfTI (2.23) MStI (2.51) indicate the intention to restructure the socio-political concepts, as well as to introduce a new content into his country’s domestic and foreign policy. This method for identifying the metaphor power can be used to investigate the potential impact of political speeches and can become an important tool for analyzing various aspects of the metaphor use in discourse.

作者简介

Yuhua Sun

Dalian University of Foreign Languages

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: xzxx@dlufl.edu.cn

Professor, President of the Dalian University of Foreign Languages (until 2015 - Rector), Head of the SCO National Administration in China, Director of the Research Association for the Teaching of Chinese and Russian Languages, Deputy Head of the Russian Group of the National Committee for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. She is also Director of Pushkin National Association of Researchers, Chairman of the Liaoning Association for the Study of Foreign Literature, Deputy Chairman of the Association of Translators and member of the Association of Writers of Prov. Liaoning. She received honorary awards from the State Council of the People's Republic of China. She authrored and coauthored over 100 publications including 4 monographs and 7 dictionaries. Her research is focused on Russian linguistics, Russian language teaching modern Russian literature and international political linguistics.

6 West Section of South Lushun Road, Lushunkou District, Dalian, 116044

Oleg Kalinin

Moscow State Linguistic University

Email: okalinin.lingua@gmail.com

Associate Professor of the Chinese Language Department at Moscow State Linguistic University and a postdoctoral researcher at the Military University. He teaches the Chinese language and translation theory, intercultural communication and stylistics. He has authored several textbooks, including a Chinese stylistics textbook. His research interests embrace cognitive linguistics, especially Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the Theory of categorization, discourse analysis, cultural linguistics, intercultural communication and media linguistics.

38 Ostozhenka Street. Moscow, 119034

Alexander Ignatenko

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: ignatenko-av@rudn.ru

holds a Ph. D. in Philology and is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages at the Philological Faculty of RUDN. The main areas of his research interests are intercultural communication, translation studies, cultural linguistics, history of Chinese and Russian literature, comparative studies and Chekhov studies.

10/A Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Moscow, 117198

参考

  1. Аникин Е.Е., Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А.П. Историческая динамика метафорических систем в политической коммуникации России // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2015. Т. 44. № 3. С. 26-32. [Anikin, Evgeny E., Eduard V. Budaev & Anatoly P. Chudinov. 2015. Historical dynamics of Metaphoric systems in Russian political communication. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics 44 (3). 26-32. (In Russ.)]
  2. Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А.П. Метафора в политическом интердискурсе. Монография. Екатеринбург: Урал. гос. пед. ун-т, 2006. [Budaev, Eduard V. & Anatoly P. Chudinov. 2006. Metafora v politicheskom interdiskurse. (Metaphor in political interdiscourse). Yekaterinburg: Ural state pedagogical university Publ. (In Russ.)]
  3. Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А.П. Современная российская политическая метафорология (2011-2020 гг.) // Филологический класс. 2020. Т. 25. № 2. С. 103-113. [Budaev, Eduard V. & Anatoly P. Chudinov. 2020. Contemporary Russian political metaphorology. Philological class 25 (3). 103-113. (In Russ.)]
  4. Гурулева Т.Л. Китайская языковая личность: характеристика речевого портрета и его сопоставительный анализ: монография. Москва: Издательский дом ВКН, 2019. [Guruleva, Tatiana L. 2019. Kitayskaya yazykovaya lichnost': kharakteristika rechevogo portreta i yego sopostavitel'nyy analiz: monografiya (Chinese linguistic personality: characteristics of the speech portrait and its comparative analysis: monograph). Moscow: VKN Publ. (In Russ.)]
  5. Калинин О.И. К вопросу о зависимости персуазивности речевого сообщения от количества метафор // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2020a. № 2. С. 31-43. [Kalinin, Oleg I. 2020. On the question of the dependence of the persuasiveness of a speech message on the number of metaphors. Actual Problems of Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics 2. 31-43 (In Russ.)]
  6. Калинин О.И. К вопросу о зависимости персуазивности речевого сообщения от содержания метафорического переноса // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2020b. №. 4. [Kalinin, Oleg I. 2020. On the question of the dependence of the persuasiveness of a speech message on the content of the metaphorical transfer. Actual Problems of Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics 4. (In Russ.)]
  7. Калинин О.И., Мавлеев Р.Р. Сопоставительный анализ метафоричности военно-политических дискурсов языков разной типологии (на примере русского и китайского языков) // Когнитивные исследования языка. 2019b. Т. 38. С. 546-553. [Kalinin, Oleg I. & Ruslan R. Mavleev. 2019. Comparative analysis of the metaphorical nature of military-political discourses in languages of different typology (on the example of Russian and Chinese languages). Cognitive language studies 38. 546-553. (In Russ.)]
  8. Лакофф Д., Джонсон М. Метафоры, которыми Мы Живём. Москва: Едиториал УРСС, 2004. [Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2004. Metaphors We Live By. Moscow: URSS. (In Russ.)]
  9. Ричардс А. Философия риторики // Теория метафоры. Москва: Наука, 1990. С. 44-67. [Richards, Ivor. A. 1990. The philosophy of rhetoric. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)]
  10. Чудинов А.П. Россия в метафорическом зеркале: когнитивное исследование политической метафоры (1991-2000): Монография. 2001. [Chudinov, Anatoly P. 2001. Rossiya v metaforicheskom zerkale: kognitivnoye issledovaniye politicheskoĭ metafory (1991-2000): Monografiya. (Russia in a Metaphorical Mirror: A Cognitive Study of Political Metaphor (1991-2000): Monograph). (In Russ.)]
  11. Ahrens, Kathleen. 2010. Mapping Principles for Conceptual Metaphors. In book: Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. Chapter: Mapping Principles for Conceptual Metaphors. Publisher: Amsterdam: John Benjamins. In Alice Deignan, Graham Low & Zazie Todd (eds.) doi: 10.1075/hcp.26.12ahr
  12. Ahrens, Kathleen, Ho-Ling Liu, Chia-Ying Lee, Shu-Ping Gong, Shin-Yi Fang & Yuan-Yu Hsu. 2007. Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain Lang 11 (2). 163-171. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.10.004
  13. Baranov, Anatoly N. & Jork Zinken. 2003. Die metaphorische Struktur des öffentlichen Diskurses in Russland und Deutschland: Perestrojka- und Wende-Periode. Metapher, Bild und Figur. Osteuropäische Sprach- und Symbolwelten. In Bernhard Symanzik, Gerhard Birkfellner & Alfred Sproede (eds.). 93-121
  14. Beneš, Vaclav E. 1973. Thema - Rhema - Gliederung und Textlinguistik. Studien zur Texttheorie und zur deutschen Grammatik. Sitta von H. (ed.). 42-62
  15. Boeynaems, Amber Boeynaems, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konjin & Gerard Steen. 2017. The impact of conventional and novel metaphors in news on issue viewpoint. International Journal of Communication 11 (June). 2861-2879
  16. Bowdle, Brain F. & Dedre Gentner. 2005. The Career of Metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 112 (1). 193-216
  17. Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konjin, Gerard J. Steenb & Marlies A.R. Iepsma. 2015. Making ads less complex, yet more creative and persuasive: the effects of conventional metaphors and irony in print advertising. International Journal of Advertising 34 (3). 515-532
  18. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2016. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. UK: University of the West of England.
  19. Coulson, Seana & Cyma Van Petten. 2002.Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition 30 (6). 958-968.
  20. Daneš, František. 1976. Zur semantischen und thematischen Struktur des Kommunikats. Stud. Gramm. 11 (Probleme der Textgrammatik). 29-40.
  21. Deignan, Alice. 2015. MIP, the corpus and dictionaries: What makes for the best metaphor analysis? Metaphor and Social World 5 (1). 145-154.
  22. Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Edit Elnatan, Noa Shuval & Adi Zur. 2004. Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings. Metaphor and Symbol 19 (2). 115-141
  23. Gornostaeva, Anna A. Review of Andreas Musolff. 2016. Political metaphor analysis. Discourse and scenarios. Bloomsbury, 194 p. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (1). 244-246. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-244-246
  24. Hartman, Todd K. 2012. Toll Booths on the Information Superhighway? Policy Metaphors in the Case of Net Neutrality. Political Communication 29 (3). 278-298.
  25. Hoeken, Hans, Piet Swanepoel, Elvis Saal & Carel Jansen. 2009. Using Message Form to Stimulate Conversations: The Case of Tropes. Communication Theory 19 (1). 49-65.
  26. Hussey, Karen A. & Albert N. Katz. 2006. Metaphor Production in Online Conversation: Gender and Friendship Status. Discourse Process 42 (1). 75-98.
  27. Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47. 263-291.
  28. Koller, Veronika. 2002. «A Shotgun Wedding»: Co-occurrence of War and Marriage Metaphors in Mergers and Acquisitions Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 17 (3).179-203.
  29. Koller, Veronika. 2003. Metaphor Clusters, Metaphor Chains: Analyzing the Multifunctionality of Metaphor in Text.
  30. Koller, Veronica. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  31. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Metaphor and Culture. Where Metaphors Come From. Oxford University Press. 73-96. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.003.0005
  32. Kozlova, Lyubov A. 2020. Metaphor as the refection of culture determined cognition. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (4). 899-925. doi: 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-899-925
  33. Landtsheer, Christ’l De. 2009. Collecting Political Meaning from the Count of Metaphor. Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 59-78
  34. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir Ozyumenko & Douglas M. Ponton. 2019. Persuasion strategies in media discourse about Russia: Linguistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 15 (1). 3-22
  35. Martin, James R. English Text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992
  36. Mashal, Nehjla, Miriam Faust & Talma Hendler. 2005. The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia 43 (14). 2084-2100. DOI: 10.1016/ j.neuropsychologia.2005.03.019
  37. Mio, Jeffery S., Ronald E. Riggio, Shana Levin & Renford Reese. 2005. Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2). 287-294. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.005
  38. Mishlanova, Svetlana L. & Mariya V. Suvorova. 2017. Evaluation of metaphor identification procedure vu (MIPVU) by the criteria of a truly scientific method. Perm University Bulletin. Russian and foreign philology 9 (1). 46-52. doi: 10.17072/2037-6681-2017-1-46-52
  39. Nacey, Susan, Lettie Dorst, Tina Krennmayr, Gudrun Reijnierse & Gerard Steen. 2019. Chapter 1. MIPVU in multiple languages. 2-21
  40. Ottati, Victor C. & Randal Renstrom A. 2010. Metaphor and Persuasive Communication: A Multifunctional Approach. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4 (9). 783-794. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00292.x
  41. Sopory, Pradeep. 2006. Metaphor and Attitude Accessibility. Southern Communication Journal 71 (3). 251-272
  42. Stee, Stephanie. 2018. Meta-Analysis of the Persuasive Effects of Metaphorical vs. Literal Messages. Communication Studies 69 (5). 545-566
  43. Stee, Stephanie, Seth M. Noar, Nancy G. Harrington & Lisanne F. Grant. 2018. The Effects of Metaphor Use and Message Format on Cognitive Processing and Persuasive Outcomes of Condom Promotion Messages. Communication Studies 69 (1). 23-41. DOI: 10.1080/ 10510974.2017.1396543
  44. Stringaris, Argyris K., Nicholas C. Medfordm Vincent Giampietro, Michael J. Brammer & Anthony S. David. 2007.Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences. Brain and Language 100 (2). 150-162. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.08.001
  45. Thibodeau, Paul H. & Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS One. 6 (2). e16782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
  46. Thibodeau, Paul H. & Lera Boroditsky. 2013. Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning. PLoS One. 8. (1). e52961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
  47. Wagenaar, Willem A., Gil Keren & Sarah Lichtenstein. 1988. Islanders and hostages: Deep and surface structures of decision problems. Acta Psychologica 67 (2). 175-189
  48. 江治刚&阳海清. 俄罗斯政治语言学视域下外宣文本政治隐喻翻译策略研究 // 东北亚外语研究. 2020 (1). [Jiang, Zhigang & Haiqing Yang. 2020. Research on the translation strategy of political metaphors in foreign propaganda texts from the perspective of Russian political linguistics. Northeast Asian Foreign Language Studies (In Chin.)]
  49. 孙福庆. 俄罗斯政治隐喻研究的核心理论阐析 // 牡丹江大学学报. 2020 (9). [Sun Fuqing. 2020. Analysis of the core theory of Russian political metaphor research. Journal of Mudanjiang University (In Chin.)]

版权所有 © Sun Y., Kalinin O., Ignatenko A., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##