Conceptual Metaphor in Political Discourse Analysis: Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent

1. Conceptual Metaphor in Political Discourse Analysis: Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent LM1 (Boyd) 16 April 2019

2. Aims and Scope Political discourse Review • Linguistic forms employed to frame political messages, ideology and moral world-views; • As in other fields of political action, candidates make use of various rhetorical “appeals” and stylistic devices such as metaphor and metonymy; • Other linguistic forms used strategically in interactive genres such as debates: • pronouns (which can also be used metaphorically) • terms of address and personal reference • modals • lexis

3. Conceptual (Cognitive) Metaphor Theory 1 • Lakoff and Johnson > Metaphor treated as basic mechanism of the mind rather than purely linguistic or (rhetorical) literary phenomenon (Metaphors We Live By, 1980); • "Most commonplace thoughts make use of an extensive, but unconscious, system of metaphorical concepts, that is, concepts from a typically concrete realm of thought that are used to comprehend another, completely different domain" (Lakoff 1995); • Whenever they are faced with a new situation, speakers draw on so-called “idealised cognitive models”, as part of a mental process centring around conceptual metaphors (Gavins 2007).

4. CMT 2 • “transfer, or ‘projection’, or ‘mapping’ from one experiential domain to another. Usually the source domain is familiar from social or physical or physiological experience” (Chilton & Schäffner 2002); • In CMT known source domain is mapped onto another conceptual domain (Chilton 2008; Lakoff & Johnson1980): • Life is a journey • Love is war • Labo(u)r is a resource • Life is a container • life is a container can be viewed as the means by which the abstract target domain of life is mapped onto the more concrete idealised cognitive source domain of container; • In this way, the target domain is reconceptualized or “restructured” in terms of the source domain.

5. CMT 3 • Mappings are realized in the lexis and grammar, through the deliberate or unconscious choice of a particular word and the use of an expression or entailment as part of a so-called metaphorical mapping; • Lexical and grammatical realizations are both the product and result of a text’s “ideological aspects” (Schäffner 2003: 23); • They reflect “a conceptual coherence through a common underlying metaphorical schema” (Chilton and Schäffner 2002: 29).

6. CMT 4 • Politicians persuasive “when their metaphors interact with other linguistic features to legitimize policies” (Charteris-Black 2005); • “Metaphor is a very effective means through which potential leaders can communicate with the ‘voice within’ because it creates evocative representations of the speaker and their policies by arousing emotions and forms part of the process by which an audience reconstructs the causal relationship of an argument (Charteris-Black 2005); • Unconscious cognitive models are fundamental to understanding (and reproducing) politics, exactly as in other areas in our lives; • Cognitive models help us to “fill in” (Lakoff 2002) what is not explicitly said in political discourse.

7. Lakoff’s (2002/1996) Moral Politics 1 • Cognitive models applied to morality on the basis of two interpretations of The nation is a familymetaphor(Lakoff 2002); • CMT applied to US political system using cognitive models of morality based on two competing “idealised” (Cienki 2005) interpretations of Nation As Family; • Their different conceptualisations determine “which metaphorical ways of thinking and morality have priority” in US political discourse (Cienki 2005a);

8. Lakoff’s (2002/1996) Moral Politics 2 • A natural metaphor implying that nation seen as a family, the government as a parent and the citizens as children: turning family-based morality into political morality, and providing the link between conservative or liberal family values and their political policies and world views; • Conservative and, to a much lesser degree, liberal political actors consciously draw upon the models linguistically to articulate a unifying system of moral and family values in their political rhetoric.

9. Lakoff (2016) Huffington Post 1 • How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? • In conservatism e.g.: • What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? • What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? • How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? • How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty?

10. Lakoff (2016) Huffington Post 1 • In a strict father family: father knows best, he knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and spouse do what he says; • Responsibility is seen as personal and not social responsibility: what you become is only up to you as society has nothing to do with it. This means that you are responsible only for yourself and not for others; • In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. > Trump insults others mercilessly because he knows he can win “an onstage TV insult game” and in strict conservative eyes that makes him a “formidable winning candidate”

11. Strict Father Morality • Strict Father [SF] model shapes the conservative worldview (for US); • Based on notion that a child should never be coddled [treated indulgently] so that the development of certain morals (or virtues) is encouraged by a strict authoritarian parent: self-discipline, self-reliance and respect for legitimate authority; • A child raised in such an environment will naturally become self-reliantlater in life; • Natural disdain for meddling parents (=government) who assert their authority when they have no business doing so; • Strong belief that the rich should have moral authority over the poor; • The American Dream myth: “America is truly a land of opportunity whereby anyone with self-discipline and can, through hard work, climb the ladder of success” (Lakoff 2002 [1996]).

12. Strict Father Morality 2 In a well-ordered world there should be a moral hierarchy: • God above Man • Man above Nature • The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), • The Rich above the Poor • Employers above Employees, • Adults above Children • Western culture above other cultures • America above other countries

13. Strict Father Morality 3 Lakoff has recently proposed a split among different types of conservative: • (1) white Evangelical Christians: God is ultimate strict father • (2) laissez-faire free market conservatives: not only shaped by the political power of the white evangelical churches but also by the power of those who seek free markets where wealthy people and corporations set market rules in their favor with minimal government regulation • (3) pragmatic conservatives (who are not bound by evangelical beliefs): they want to be strict fathers in their own domains, with authority primarily over their own lives [TRUMP]

14. Nurturant Parent Morality • Nurturant Parent [NP] model shapes the liberal (or progressive) worldview • Moral values very different from SF model; • Model strongly based on basic childhood experiences of being cared for and cared aboutbya nurturant empathetic parent; • a child grows (or, is nurtured) through interaction and care, thereby instilling a strong sense of empathy for others and potential for achievement and enjoyment; • Empathy is viewed metaphorically as “the capacity to project your consciousness into other people so that you can feel what they feel” (Lakoff 2002 [1996]: 114) • Children raised according to such a model develop a strong sense of community and, consequently, feel responsibility for those members of the community who need help (Lakoff 2002 [1996]: 118).

15. "Keeping the moral books" • Well-being is conceptualized as wealth: an increase in well-being is a "gain" and a decrease a "loss" or a "cost"; • General metaphor for causal action: causation is seen as giving an effect to an affected party (e.g. "The noise gave me a headache"); • When two people interact causally with each other > conceptualized as engaging in a transaction, each transferring an effect to the other: An effect that helps = a gain; one that harms = loss; • Moral action conceptualized in terms of financial transaction: morality is (un)fair distribution • Source domain > financial transaction: It is moral to pay your debts and immoral not to; • "When moral action is understood metaphorically in terms of financial transaction, financial morality is carried over to morality in general: There is a moral imperative not only to pay one's financial debts, but also one's moral debts." http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

16. SF vs. NP Morality in Politics morality is fair distribution CONSERVATIVES • social programs are seen as unnatural and immoral as they “coddle” people who should be learning to fend for themselves. • natural consequence of the “myth of America as a Land of Opportunity”, or the American Dream (Lakoff 2002) • taxation is seen as a form of moral punishment for making more money and realizing the American Dream (i.e., “for doing what, according to the American Dream, they are supposed to do” (Lakoff 2002).

17. SF vs. NP Morality in Politics morality is fair distribution LIBERALS (PROGRESSIVES) • federal government seen as a strong, nurturant parent that provides basic needs to all of its citizens, especially those in need; • social programs both help and strengthen people, and consequently they are seen as civic duty and are conceptualised metaphorically as investments; • taxation is seen as a sort of “moral accounting” and civil duty: they have received nurturance from their parents, so they owe the same to other children if needed (Lakoff 2002).

18. Pronouns I Pronominal use in politics is closely tied to the notions of identity and ideology: • indicate (or obscure) collectivity and individuality (Fairclough 2003), • ‘self’ or ‘other’ referencing or as a way to polarise representations of ingroups and outgroups (Van Dijk 2001); • their meaning highly influenced by the social and political ‘spaces’ within which people and groups are positioned or position themselves (Chilton & Schäffner 1997); • choice and interpretation mediated by a number of social and personal factors: (in)formality, status, solidarity, power, class, sex and race (Wilson 1990).

19. Pronouns II • Pronouns can be located on a distancing scale: “a pronominal window into the thinking and attitude of politicians towards particular political topics and political personalities” (Wilson 1990); • The choice of one pronoun over another closely tied to a speaker’s identity and ideology reflecting his/her “mental representation of the receivers and classification of them” (Munday 2012: 69). • Pronouns scaled deictically to represent people’s position in the world on a space axis (Chilton 2004), thereby conceptualizing “the relationship of speaker and hearer as well as various situational features including physical location, point in the speech and development of the discourse” (Munday 2012: 68); • 3rd person PNs can indicate closeness and/or distance in relation to ‘self’ and ‘other’ referencing and its distance from the ‘deictic centre’ – of which I and its variants can be considered the centre – of the distancing scale (Chilton 2004; Wilson 1990).

20. Terms of Address & Personal Reference Pronominal use closely tied to terms of address and personal reference. • terms of address used when speaking to a person being named (addressee): as with the vocative and the 2nd person pronouns (Murphy 1988: 318); • use of vocatives can be an “audience-engagement strategy” (Halmari 2008: 263) • personal reference used when the person named (referent) is not being spoken to; • in (presidential) debates conversations roles (speaker/addressee/referent) are not so clear-cut: • opponent rarely addressee and often referent • audience (or moderator) more often the addressee • these relationships influence pronominal choices

21. Levels of context • In CDA investigations, we first need to consider the immediate and wider contexts which define the text: co-text, immediate (situational) context, socio-cultural and historical context; • Contextually features, “particularly those such as socially defined role, location, timing, are pivotal in the definition of political discourse” (Chilton and Schäffner, 2002, p. 16).

22. Contexts 1: Third Presidential Debate 2008 • Role: Barack Obama (democratic candidate) and John McCain (republican candidate), about domestic issues (taxes, health care, world financial crisis); McCain in weaker position (associated with Bush, uncomfortable with format) • Time: 15 October 2008, 19 days before the presidential elections in the midst of the global financial crisis; • Place: Hofstra University, New York, Format: candidates seated at table with moderator. Candidates questioned in turn with two-minute responses, followed by five minutes of open discussion for each question.

23. Contexts 2: Joe the Plumber • Joe the Plumber [JTP] mentioned many times: based on a real person, Joe Wurzelbacher, but recontextualized metaphorically and metonymically to represent all Americans; • Obama met Wurzelbacher three days before debate; JTP told him about concern (un-American) over proposed democrat tax plan of taxing incomes of over $250,000/year; • McCain strategically recast exchange to delegitimize Obama’s tax and health care plans depicting them as fundamentally immoral and un-America and to legitimize his own policies and worldview; JTP embodies “a working-class white everyman” both in debate and in mass media discussions (Crowley 2009).

24. Are Political Debates a specific genre? • In debates candidates aim to demonstrate knowledge about issues and ability to speak “one-to-one to ordinary folk” (Myers 2008); • Debate discourse is “representative of the supra-individual level” in that the campaign team of the various candidates “has constructed strategic ways of framing issues verbally for the campaign” (Cienki 2005); • Hybrid genre: political interviews + speeches (Halmari 2008); • mixed register: formal, serious, informal joking, prepared and reused statements, some spontaneous responses (Cienki 2005); • Debates provide “insight into what the candidates are like and how they think on their feet” (Myers 2008); • Not really debates: • little direct interaction between the two candidates and with audience; • topics, questions and times always predetermined; • highly regulated by two campaign teams and Committee for Presidential Debates (Myers 2008).

25. References to ‘Joe the Plumber’

26. Example 1: McCain

27. Example 1: McCain Sen. Obama (referent) Full Name for legitimacy familiar NP antecedent I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his name is JoeWurzelbacher. Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes. First Name informal + he 2PSg PN accusatory You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream. Negative social actor American Dream myth Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not have -- I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Sen. Obama (referent) Joe (addressee) vs. 1PSg I ‘dialogue’ First Name, Vocative + 2PSg That's 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like himis have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business. 2PSg without Vocative ‘JTP’: Metaphor/Metonymy

28. Example 2: Obama

29. Example 2: Obama Now, the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, "Five years ago, when you were in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then." Recontextualization of ‘JTP’ Direct Speech (Conversation) 2PSg (?) metonymy other professionals 3PPl extended group And what I want to do is to make sure thatthe plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn't yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now. 1PPl inclusive ‘we’ Moral responsibility And that requires us to make some important choices. [...] [...] And I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here's your fine -- zero. You won't pay a fine, because... // Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it. // So here's what we do. We exempt small businesses. In fact, what, Joe, if you want to do the right thing with your employees and you want to provide them health insurance, we'll give you a 50 percent credit so that you will actually be able to afford it. Joe Vocative You PL=audience First name, John Inclusive ‘we’

30. Example 3: McCain You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. Exclusive ‘we’ Obama=unfair distribution In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. Obama=meddling parent I want Joe the plumberto spread that wealth around. You told himyou wanted to spread the wealth around. The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around. I want small businesses -- and by the way, the small businesses that we're talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now. 1PSg NP ‘JTP’=fair distribution vs. 2PSg ‘you’ Joe+small businesses Who -- why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? Why would you want to do that, anyone, anyone in America, when we have such a tough time, when these small business people, likeJoe the plumber, are going to create jobs, unless youtake that money from him and spread the wealth around. Joe+small business people 2PSg collective

31. Considerations 1: conceptual metaphors ‘JTP’ is recontextualized according to different worldviews: for McCain: ‘JTP’ is a metaphor for all working class Americans trying to realize the American Dream; • ‘JTP’ represents all small business owners and “millions of others like him”, who are self-disciplined and hard-working; • Obama is a meddling parent who, immorally, wants to take JTP’s money away through taxation by “spreading the wealth around”, thus keeping ‘JTP’ from realizing the American Dream.

32. Considerations 2: conceptual metaphors for Obama: ‘JTP’ naturally fits within his all-encompassing vision of America • ‘JTP’ is the same as others (“the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the entrepreneur” vs. McCain’s “small businesses”): particularizing synecdoches serve a “leveling” function (Reisigl 2006: 603), which allows Obama to extend his message of unity to everyone; • Anyone who needs help deserves it and should be helped but not without first making “some difficult choices”, which is an “investment” for the future.

33. Considerations 3: Pronominal use • Pronouns used strategically by both candidates to frame and legitimize their political message and moral worldview (in their presentation of ‘JTP’): McCain uses pronouns more strategically (and more deliberately) than Obama; • both 3rd person and 2nd person pronouns use for both distance and negative other-presenting (vs. Obama) and closeness and positive self-presenting (vs. ‘JTP’ and the audience); • Pronominal choice highly tied to terms of address and personal reference, which allow McCain to distance himself further from Obama (Sen. Obama, he, You) and create more closeness to Joe (Joe, my friend, my old buddy)

34. Considerations 4: Strategic use of pronouns Obama use of pronouns seems to fit with his general use of pronouns in the debates and his campaign speeches: • He tends to use 1st person Pl over Sg pronoun: positive self- and other-presenting within an overall empathy-building message of unity (Boyd 2009, 2013; Suleiman & O’Connell 2008); • 2nd person you is used to both legitimize and (re)contextualize: to frame his original exchange with the real Joe; to recontextualize McCain’s Joe discourse and to directly address an extended (all-encompassing) Joe group. • 3rd person Sg pronouns are often have a plural (or collective) meaning: McCain: “Of course, I've talked to people like Joe the plumber and tell him that I'm not going to spread his wealth around.”

35. Conclusions • ‘Joe the Plumber’ was recontextualized by McCain and, consequently, recontextualized by Obama to represent two fundamentally different moral views of American politics; • In the turns dealing with Joe in the debate the differences between how the SF and NP morality models conceptualize Morality As Fairness come to the forefront; • Strategic use of pronouns, terms of address and personal reference combine to further underline these differences as well as to frame the candidates’ individual (political) messages and moral worldviews;

36. References Ahrens, K. In press. “Examining Conceptual Worldview through Lexical Frequency Patterns”. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Windows to the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boyd, M.S. 2013. Reframing the American: conceptual metaphor and personal pronouns in the 2008 presidential debates. In Cap & Okulska, Analyzing Genres in Political Communication. Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boyd, M.S. 2009. “Deconstructing Race and Identity in US Presidential Discourse: Barack Obama’s Speech on Race”. Atlantis: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 31(2): 75-94. Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge. Chilton, P. & C. Schäffner. 2002. “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse”. In Chilton and Schäffner (Eds.) Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. & C. Schäffner. 1997: “Discourse and Politics”, Van Dijk T.A. (Ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, Vol 2 (pp. 206-230). London: Sage. Cienki, A. 2005a. “Metaphor in the ‘Strict Father’ and ‘Nurturant Parent’ cognitive models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study.” Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279-312. Cienki, A. 2005b. “The metaphorical use of family terms versus other nouns in political debates.” Identifying information and tenor in texts: Special issue of Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 27–39. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Oxford and New York: Routledge. Halmari, H. 2008. On the Language of the Clinton-Dole Presidential Campaign Debates: General Tendencies and Successful Strategies. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(2), 247-270. Lakoff, G. 2002 [1996]. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & M. Johnson. 2003 [1980]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Murphy, G. 1988. “Personal Reference in English”. Language and Society 17: 317-349. Myers, G. 2008. “Analyzying Interaction in Broadcast Debates”. Ruth Wodak & MichałKrzyżanowski (Eds.). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 121-144). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reisigl, M. 2006. “Rhetorical Tropes in Political Discourse.” In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Revised ed., Vol. 10, pp. 597-604). Oxford: Elsevier. Reisigl, M. 2008. “Rhetoric of Political Speeches”. In R. Wodak & V. Koller (Eds.) Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere (pp. 243-269). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Suleiman, Camelia & Daniel C. O’Connell. 2008. “Race and Gender in Current American Politics”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 37: 373-389. Van Dijk, T.A. 2001. “Multidisciplanary CDA: a Plea for Diversity.” In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 95-120). London: Sage. Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wodak, R., R. De Cillia, M. Reisigl & K. Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity (2nd revised ed.). Edinburgh: EUP.