Archetypical metaphor in the political rhetoric context

UDC 80::32

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.1-21.003

Semenova Elena M.,

Сandidate of Philology, Associate Professor of the Pedagogy,

Psychology and Translation Studies Department

Saint-Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics

ORCID 0000-0001-5923-6032

e-mail: semenovae63@gmail.com

Nalyotova Natalia I.,

Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of the Pedagogy,

Psychology and Translation Studies Department

Saint-Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics

ORCID 0000-0003-2713-9427

e-mail: askin06@mail.ru

Efimova Nadezhda N.,

Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor

of the Translation and Translatology Department

Irkutsk State University

ORCID 0000-0002-0500-1446

e-mail: caprico2009@yandex.ru

The article discusses various approaches to the study of archetypal metaphors in political discourse. A brief review of the results obtained by linguists in this direction is given. Particular attention is paid to highlighting the main provisions of the theory of the archetypal metaphor of M. Osborne, which are accompanied by the author's comments. The results of the empirical study of the archetypal binary opposition (ABO) LIGHT/DARK, based on the material of modern American political media discourse, are presented for consideration. The mechanism of actualizing the speech-acting potential of metaphorical images within the framework of the cognitive-discursive paradigm is described. The existence of the correlation between the methods of influencing on information recipients and the cognitive characteristics of ABO LIGHT/DARK is proved. The description of four ways of influencing on public consciousness is presented: emotional, referential, appellative and mental. The characteristic to the corresponding methods of manipulative impact on the audience is given. The correlation of these methods and techniques with cognitive characteristics of archetypal concepts and their metaphorical representatives is revealed.

The relevance and novelty of this approach lies in the fact that it allows not only to ascertain the presence of an acting potential of the archetypal metaphor, but also explains the cognitive mechanism that ensures its manipulative influence on the mass consciousness of the target audience made by the author of political discourse.

Keywords: archetypal image, archetypal metaphor, cognitive-discursive paradigm, political discourse, speech acting potential.

References

1. Arutiunova N.D. Tipy iazykovykh znachenii. Otsenka, sobytie, fakt. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 211 s.
2. Budaev E.V., Chudinov A.P. Metafora v politicheskom interdiskurse. Ekaterinburg: Ural’skii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet, 2006. 212 s.
3. Budaev E.V., Chudinov A.P. Zarubezhnaia politicheskaia metaforologiia. Ekaterinburg: Ural’skii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet, 2008. 250 s.
4. Gornostaeva A.A. Ironichnye metafory v politicheskom diskurse // Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Lingvistika. 2018. T. 22. No. 10. S. 108–125.
5. Kobozeva I.M. Leksikosemanticheskie zametki o metafore v politicheskom diskurse // Politicheskaia lingvistika. 2010. No. 2 (32). S. 41–46.
6. Osborn M., Eninger D. Metafora v publichnom vystuplenii / per. s angl. T.N. Zubakinoi // Politicheskaia lingvistika. 2011. No. 1(35). S. 244–253.
7. Pocheptsov G.G. Imidzhelogiia. Moscow: Refl-buk; Kiev: Vakler, 2000. 768 s.
8. Saduov R.T. Lingvokul’turnye osobennosti rechevogo vozdeistviia v politicheskikh vystupleniiakh Baraka H. Obamy // Politicheskaia lingvistika. 2014. No. 48. S. 18–22.
9. Semenova E.M. Ontologiia binarnykh oppozitsii, ili “Temnaia storona svetlogo”. Analiz sovremennogo amerikanskogo politicheskogo mediadiskursa. St. Petersburg: IPTs SZIU RANKhiGS, 2019. 132 s.
10. Shomova S.A. Ot misterii do strit-arta. Ocherki ob arkhetipakh kul’tury v politicheskoi kommunikatsii. Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, 2016. 262 s.
11. Barnes J. E. Ex-C.I.A. Officer’s brief detention deepens mystery in Montenegro. New York Post. 2018 (181123). URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/us/politics
12. Casey K. R. Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment // Quarterly Journal of Speech. 2020. Vol. 106. Iss. 1. P. 2–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2019.1698756
13. Osborn M. Archetypal metaphor in rhetoric: The light‐dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech. 1967. Vol. 53. Iss. 2. P. 115–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335636709382823

2. Priest D. Decades of scandals leave no dent in agency’s power Greg Miller // Washington Post. 2014 (141210). URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca
3. 15Thompson K. Moderator unbound // Washington Post. 2015 (150804). URL: https://corpus.byu.edu/coca
4. 2 arrested in fatal shooting of 19-year-old // Columbus Dispatch. 2016 (161228). URL: http://corpus.byu.edu