Metonymy in Spanish and American parliamentary speechesObama’s State of the Union Address versus Rajoy’s State of the Nation Address

  1. Ana Belén Cabrejas Peñuelas
Journal:
Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

ISSN: 1697-7750

Year of publication: 2018

Issue: 19

Pages: 45-69

Type: Article

DOI: 10.6035/CLR.2018.19.3 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study attempts to analyze the metonymies used in the Economy section of two equivalent parliamentary speeches: the 2015 State of the Union Address in the US and the 2015 State of the Nation Debate in Spain, which belong to two different debate traditions. The present study aims at answering the following research questions: What metonymies do President Obama and Prime Minister Rajoy use in their American and Spanish parliamentary speeches in an attempt to convince the public of economic victory? What are the similarities and differences between the role of metonymy in shaping public opinion about economic recovery in America and Spain in both speeches? To answer these questions, we use the method of conceptual metonymy (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) which serves to determine the role that metonymy plays in swaying the public’s opinion to their side and, thus, it is a tool of manipulation. The results indicate that Democrat Obama and Conservative Rajoy used metonymies (and their interactions with metaphors) ideologically as they attempted to persuade their audiences that economic recovery was a reality and gain public support for them, replaced the discourse of crime for the discourse of a natural tragedy and stressed Us and Our good actions and Them and Their bad actions. Despite the similarities, both politicians used metonymies to a different extent and used them to stress different aspects of their countries’ economic recovery.

€ View funding

Funding information

The present study has been funded by the research project emo-fundett: proper (reference code FFI2013-47792-C2-2-P), granted by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Arimitsu, Nami. 2015. «Analyzing the place for the event-type metonymies from the perspective of negative evaluative factors». Revista brasileira de lingüística aplicada 15 (2): 475-502.
  • Atkinson, David. 2011. «Political implicature in Parliamentary discourse: an analysis of Mariano Rajoy’s speech on the 2006 Catalan Statute of Autonomy». En Spanish at work: analysing institutional discourse across the Spanish-speaking world, ed. Nuria Lorenzo-Dus. New York: Palgrave. 130-145.
  • Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. «Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: an update». En Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, ed. René Dirven and Ralf Pörings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 202-277.
  • Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. «Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy». En Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view, ed. Reka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Javier Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 5-57.
  • Benczes, Réka. 2011. «Putting the notion of “domain” back into metonymy: Evidence from Compounds». En Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view, ed. Reka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Javier Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 197-215.
  • Biernacka, Ewa. 2013. The role of metonymy in political discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
  • Autora. 2015.
  • Autores. 2014.
  • Catalano, Theresa and Linda R. Waugh. 2013a. «The ideologies behind newspaper crime reports of Latinos and Wall Street/CEOs: a critical analysis of metonymy in text and image». Critical discourse studies 10 (4): 406-426.
  • Catalano, Theresa and Linda R. Waugh. 2013b. «The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events». International Journal of language studies 7 (2): 31-60.
  • Cortés de los Ríos, María Enriqueta. 2010. «Cognitive devices to communicate the economic crisis: An analysis through covers in The Economist». Ibérica 20: 81-106.
  • Díez-Prados, Mercedes. 2016. «The use of metaphor and evaluation in discourse strategies in pre-electoral debates: Just about winning votes». En Exploring discourse strategies in social and cognitive interaction: multimodal and cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. Manuela Romano and María Dolores Porto. USA: John Benjamins. 215-243.
  • Ferrari, Federica. 2007. «Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a “preventing war” persuasion strategy». Discourse and society 18 (5): 603-625.
  • Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja and Goran Milić. 2011. «Metonymy at the crossroads: a case of
  • euphemisms and dysphemisms». En Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics, ed. Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Javier Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. Amsderdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 147-165.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford: OUP.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter Radden. 1998. «Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistics view». Cognitive linguistics 9 (1): 37-77.
  • Lakoff, Geoff and Mark Johnson. 1980/2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Littlemore, Jeannette. 2015. Metonymy: hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Martín Rojo, Luisa. 2000. «Enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamentarios sobre la política de inmigración en España». Oralia 3: 113-148.
  • Meadows, Bryan. 2007. «Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: A critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004-2005». Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines 1 (2): 1-17.
  • Molpeceres Arnáiz, Sara. 2012. «Imágenes mentales retórico-persuasivas en el discurso político actual: los ejemplos de Obama y Zapatero». En Retórica y política: los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, ed. Emilio Del Río, María del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva and Tomás Albadalejo. La Rioja: Ediciones Instituto de Estudios Riojanos. 297-312.
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg. 2003. «Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy». En Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, ed. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 1-22.
  • Portero Muñoz, Carmen. 2011. «Noun-noun euphemisms in the language of the global financial crisis». Journal of the Spanish association of Anglo-American studies 33 (2): 137-157.
  • Pragglejaz Group. 2007. «MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in Discourse». Metaphor and symbol 22 (1): 1-39.
  • Proctor, Katarzyna and Lily I-Wen Su. 2011. «The 1st person plural in political discourse –American politicians in interviews and in a debate». Journal of pragmatics 43: 3251-3266.
  • Shie, Jian-Shiung. 2011. «Metaphors and metonymies in New York Times and Times Supplement news headlines». Journal of pragmatics 43: 1318-1334.
  • Shogan, Colleen J. 2015. «The President’s State of the Union Address: tradition, function, and policy implications». Congressional research service. Retrieved from .
Data source: Dialnet