The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. DOI: 10.17561/grove.v28.6607 LANGUAGE OF PERSUASION: ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE EL LENGUAJE DE PERSUASION: ANALISIS DE LAS METAFORAS CONCEPTUALES EN EL DISCURSO POLITICO Olha Lapka Universidad de Jaén 01000004 @red.ujaen es 0000-0002-7494-9476 Abstract The aim of this article is to study the scope of conceptual metaphors as a persuasive tool inherent to political discourse in English. In particular, it dwells upon the use of four conceptual metaphors such as NATION IS A FAMILY, STATE IS A BODY, POLITICS IS A WAR, and POLITICS IS A GAME. For this purpose, the transcripts of twenty-eight public speeches delivered by David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump were analysed. The results revealed numerous functions of these metaphors in the process of persuasion. Apart from that, the analysis showed that the majority of the analysed politicians resort to the source domain of WAR to conceptualise their political activities, while the source domain of GAME is the least frequently used Keywords: conceptual metaphor; political discourse; persuasion; United States; United Kingdom. Resumen El objetivo de este articulo es estudiar el alcance de las metaforas conceptuales como una herramienta de persuasién inherente al discurso politico en inglés. En particular, se centra en el uso de cuatro metéforas conceptuales, como LA NACION ES UNA FAMILIA, EL ESTADO ES UN CUERPO, LA POLITICA ES UNA GUERRA y LA POLITICA ES UN JUEGO. Para alcanzar este objetivo se analizaron las transcripciones de 28 discursos ptiblicos de David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May y Donald Trump. Los resultados revelan numerosas funciones de estas metéforas en el proceso de persuasién. Ademés, el andlisis demuestra que la mayorfa de los politicos analizados recurren a la metéfora de GUERRA para conceptualizar sus actividades politicas, mientras la metéfora de JUEGO es la que utilizan con menor frecuencia.86 Olha Lapka Palabras claves: metéfora conceptual; discurso politico; persuasién; Estados Unidos, Reino Unido. 1. Introduction Language is a powerful tool for influencing citizens’ political views to the advantage of politicians, as highlighted by Jones and Peccei (45). Language choices in political discourse are made in order to establish and maintain contact with the audience. Thus, language patterns in relation to power, which are used deliberately as a persuasive means, reinforce this contact and provide for the achievement of political goals (Fairclough 23). Consequently, political discourse is not a simple description of the political action to which it refers but a form of social practice that constitutes and interprets political realities (Silverman 177). Conceptual metaphors have long been of interest in linguistic studies. There is a growing body of research on conceptual metaphors applied in political discourse with persuasive goals. Thus, linguistics scholars have contributed to investigating the use and the interpretation of metaphors in various political spheres. For example, Lakoff (The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor; Moral Politics) has offered the study of American politics with regard to conceptual metaphors, or Musolff (Metaphor; Political Metaphor) has analysed the ways of public perception of Europe. This article focuses on the persuasion power of conceptual metaphors in political discourse in English. The present study data comprise twenty-cight transcripts of political speeches delivered in the interval between 2010 and 2016 by the leaders of the major political parties in the USA and Great Britain — David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump. The hypothesis is that certain variables influence the choice of conceptual metaphors in the political speeches under analysis: the type of discourse, the personality of the politician, and gender. Likewise, this research aims to analyse the persuasion power of conceptual metaphors in political discourses in English through the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In accordance with the general aim of the article, the following objectives are set: to analyse the scope of conceptual metaphors inherent in political discourse in English; to analyse and compare the use of four conceptual metaphors (NATION IS A FAMILY, NATION IS A BODY, POLITICS IS A WAR, and POLITICS IS A GAME) in political speeches delivered by David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump; to study whether the variables of English geographical variety, political party, politician and gender condition the use of specific metaphors. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 87 The article consists of the following sections: firstly, the introduction presents the hypothesis, the general aim and objectives are set, and the corpus is briefly described. In the theoretical framework, the notions of political discourse, persuasion, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory are explained; methodology, where the methods applied in the research and the corpus compilation are described in detail; data analysis presents the analysis of the scope of conceptual metaphors identified in the corpus; discussion of the results, where the qualitative results of the study are discussed: and, finally, conclusions are drawn. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1, The Notion of Political Discourse and Persuasion in Present-day Linguistic Studies Any political activity is impossible without the use of language (Chilton and Schaffner 3). Ina similar vein, Trosborg (119) asserts that politics largely consists of the text and talk. Thus, politicians appreciate the power of language and its crucial role in making up political speeches. Moreover, politics is the most general and universal sphere of human activity. Considering its reflection in language, it frequently appears in powerful emotive terms. Thus, a successful politician is well aware of the importance of being a good orator in order to convince the audience and get its support. In addition, language is the most valuable power and control tool, which politicians use to gain grounds and ensure their influence (Newmark 146). Van Dijk (Multi-disciplinary CDA 2) defines political discourse as a class of genres determined by a social domain, that is, by politics. However, this domain has fuzzy boundaries. By the same reasoning, van Dijk (Political Discourse and Political Cognition 225) states that political discourse is not defined by topic or style but rather by who speaks to whom, on what occasion, and with what goals. In other words, speakers have to consider a number of factors that might affect their discourse, such as knowing the situation or particular occasion or anticipating the recipients’ reaction. Apart from that, they involve knowing what is appropriate to be said and what is not. Persuasion has a considerable significance in all types of discourse, as it serves to achieve communication goals (Virtanen and Halmari 3). Still, to comprehend the role of persuasion in human interactions, it is necessary to answer the question asked by Robin Lakoff: “Why do we late-twentieth-century sophisticates, after a century’s barrage of advertising, still find ourselves be- dazzled by the language of persuasion, economic and political?” (7). The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.88 Olha Lapka First of all, according to Miller (1980), all language use to a certain extent can be viewed as persuasive. However, the definition of persuasion is restricted to the linguistic behaviour that seeks to change the way of thinking of the audience (Virtanen and Halmari 3). Similarly, broadening Miller’s idea, Salmi-Tolonen (61) defines persuasion as all manifestations of linguistic behaviour that change the thinking or behaviour of the public and fortify its beliefs. Furthermore, Jones and Peccei (51) claim that language is a powerful tool used to influence citizens’ political views by fully exploring the ways of language use in politics to the advantage of politicians. Moreover, Jones and Peccei (51) add that persuasion is regarded as the way of language use to evoke and make use of human feelings, reinforce equal ideas, foreground or draw a veil over a particular part of the message. In this manner, politicians rely on rhetorical devices to their own advantage in order to win authority and get into power. In addition, persuasion is an interactive process in which a message sender wants to affect the message receiver's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour (Jowett and O’Donnell 32). 2.2. Conceptual Metaphors in Political Discourse Political scientists and linguists emphasise the importance of metaphors in politics, especially in electionecring campaigns and policy-making (Charteris- Black 21-82). Accordingly, Harris believes language to be “a vehicular expression of politics” (57). In other words, it comprises how political ideas are transmitted to the community. In this regard, Harris (58) states that, in politics, words have a powerful effect. Therefore, the use of language tools such as conceptual metaphors enables politicians to gain the audience’s interest. Besides, it is worth noticing that political discourse is concerned with the narrative interpretation of current matters and ideas. Although the meaning of political narratives differs widely, they follow certain standard lines (Mihas 126). Furthermore, according to Lakoff and Johnson (56-60), these standard patterns are part of the culturally available stock of tropes that links language users to the prevailing ways of thinking within society. In other words, identifying and interpreting figurative tropes in discourse helps underline hidden thematic frameworks, which presupposes the identification of a root metaphor (Mihas 125). Moreover, from the perspective of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Lakoff and Johnson (5) state that the fundamental nature of metaphor is understanding one kind of experience in terms of another. In other words, metaphor involves the substitution of one denotation for another, creating certain conceptual and connotative meanings. Thus, the trope creates imagery, which evokes particular associations, and in such a way, directs the way of thinking (Mihas 125). Besides, The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 89 Perrez and Reuchamps (9) state that metaphors play a crucial role in perceiving and categorising abstract notions and help structure the understanding of complex processes. Therefore, metaphors link different areas of experience and knowledge so that one highly structured concept is cognitively and communicatively represented by means of another concept. Such links are considered evidence of a mapping between a source domain of some concepts and the target domain of the actual political or social topic (Musolff, Political Metaphor 8). It is also important to note that domains are viewed as sets of encyclopaedic knowledge and experiences that a discourse community has about any topic. This knowledge is normally arranged around some basic, prototypical concepts at the centre and sets of less well-defined concepts at the periphery (Musolff, Political Metaphor 8). Accordingly, the semantic field is the lexical representation of a conceptual domain. In addition to lexical information, it also contains generally accepted beliefs, folk theories and encyclopaedic knowledge about the source topic. It follows that its main function is to incorporate the target topic into a set of familiar concepts and assumptions and interpret it from a particular viewpoint (Croft and Cruse 7-39). Although conceptual metaphors appear in all areas of life, the political domain remains its prominent sphere. Accordingly, Semino (90) asserts that metaphors are essential in poli because politics is an abstract and complex domain of experience. Thus, metaphors can make complex entities simpler and abstractions understandable. In addition, in politics, metaphors are not only applied to indicate specific target concepts, but apart from that, they have additional pragmatic value. For example, metaphors are used to evaluate the topic, to make an emotional and persuasive appeal, or to reassure the audience that a certain problem can be tackled by familiar problem-solving strategies (Musolff, Political Metaphor Analysis 3). 3. Methodology In order to achieve the objectives of the article, the following methods of linguistic analysis were used: Critical Discourse Analysis, conceptual analysis, corpus analysis, and statistical method. Such a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches ensures the systematic and theoretically rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data (Angouri 33) The corpus for the present research comprises twenty-eight transcripts of political speeches delivered by David Cameron (12844 words), Hillary Clinton (22041 words), Theresa May (19588 words), and Donald Trump (21863 words). They are the representatives of American and British political discourses from The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.90 Olha Lapka 2010 to 2016. An equal number of speeches (seven) for each politician was selected. It is interesting that political speeches in British discourse are slightly shorter than in American discourse, but it does not impede the analysis. The corpus was compiled in such a way in order to analyse the scope of conceptual metaphors regarding the variables of English geographical variety, political party, politician, and gender. 3.1. Qualitative methods 3.1.1. Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been established as one of the approaches to discourse analysis (Angouri 32). Van Dijk (Multi-disciplinary CDA 96) has used the term Critical Discourse Analysis meaning ‘discourse analysis with attitude’. Thus, CDA deals with social problems, adopts the perspective of those who suffer, and critically analyses those in power who have the instruments of influence and the possibility to resolve these problems (van Dijk, Racism 4; Baxter 128). Moreover, CDA follows a macroanalytical perspective of the world. It means that CDA regards the notion of discourse as a social and ideological practice. For instance, CDA research focuses on the language functioning in institutional and political discourses, such as education, media, and government, to reveal hidden social inequalities (Baxter 126). 3.1.2. Metaphor analysis Within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) developed by the Pragglejaz Group (3) was adopted in order to identify metaphors in discourse (Steen et al. 4). MIP deals with the linguistic analysis of lexical units used metaphorically in discourse. Accordingly, MIP offers a procedure to identify the linguistic expressions of metaphor in a particular discourse (Pragglejaz Group 3; Steen et al. 5). The grounds of the MIP procedure are that metaphorical meaning is indirect meaning, as it emerges from a contrast between the contextual meaning of a lexical unit and its basic meaning. For example, when a lexical unit like attack or defend is used in terms of argumentation, its meaning in context refers to verbal exchange. Therefore, the basic meaning can be mapped onto the contextual meaning based on the non-literal comparison. Thus, the instances of defend and attack in terms of argumentation can be considered metaphorical (Steen et al. 6). However, unlike the common practice in cognitive linguistics, the Pragglejaz Group’s methodology The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 91 does not intend to identify the underlying conceptual mappings between domains, such as argument and war (Steen 6). Therefore, in this article, the method of the reconstruction of conceptual mappings developed by Druldk (106-7) was adapted. This method attempts to identify and determine the significance of all relevant conceptual metaphors within the chosen study area. Besides, this method uses conceptual metaphors as a tool of analysis of both political structures and political agents: it tries to define the conceptual metaphors that the discourse participants share, and the scope of conceptual metaphors of the particular discourse agents allows to get an insight into their political platforms (Drulak 106). The methodological guidelines suggested by Druldk (107) consist of seven steps: 1) choice of the target domain and of the speech community to be analysed; 2) collection of the corpus and deduction of conceptual metaphors; 3) identification of metaphorical expressions in the corpus; 4) review of the identified conceptual metaphors; 5) setting up frequencies; 6) comparison of discursive sections, 7) development of practical implications of the results. All in all, this procedure offers a comprehensive methodology for reconstructing underlying metaphorical mapping between source and target domains. 3.2, Statistical quantitative methods A chi-square test as one of the tools of statistical analysis was applied to examine the distribution of conceptual metaphors across the categories of the analysis. The chi-square test works by comparing the ‘null’ distribution to the actual distribution of the variables (such as the personality of the politician, types of discourse, political party, and gender) and checking whether they are independent (Levon 74). If the P-value is less than 0,05, it is possible to reject the hypothesis that the variables are independent at the 95,0% confidence level. Therefore, a chi-square test allows verifying whether descriptive differences are statistically significant or just a result of a coincidence (Levon 74). 4. Analysis This section will present the analysis of the persuasive power of four conceptual metaphors in American and British political discourse with target domains of nation and politics: NATION IS A FAMILY, NATIONS A BODY, POLITICS 1S WAR, and POLITICS IS GAME. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.92 Olha Lapka 4.1, NATION IS A FAMILY The NATION IS A FAMILY metaphor, which has survived over the centuries, can be traced back to the theories of the state developed in antiquity (Musolff, Metaphor 12). This family image is widespread across different societies, although the interpretations vary depending on the historical and cultural features. However, in most cases, the metaphor combines biological and hierarchical principles. For instance, rulers have often defined themselves as ‘fathers’ of their nations and their subjects as ‘children’ of various ages and states of maturity. This allows them to justify their decisions as the father is the one who can make a decision. Apart from that, the order in the country is established because it is the father who knows best and his judgement is not to be questioned (Ringmar 60). Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the conceptual domain of the FAMILY stresses relationships of love and harmony among members of a community. A. prototypical family concept is built on good examples of family life connected with cultural and folkloric beliefs. For instance, they are shown in traditional ideas about parents or marriage, such as those contained in the Biblical Commandments and the parable of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament (Musolff, Political Metaphor 25). Besides, as Musolif (Political Metaphor 25) states, being a family member is usually highly valued. This belief is widely displayed in family metaphors used in British public debates about European polit (1) Because the European Union and the Eurozone are not the same thing. And those of us who are in the EU but outside the Eurozone need that accepted. We need a British model of membership that works for Britain and for any other non-Euro members. [...] The European Union is a family of democratic nations whose original foundation was — and remains — a common market. (Cameron, Speech on Europe). In David Cameron’s speech on Europe, the family metaphor is actualised in terms of the European Union as a family of democratic nations. This metaphor shows that Great Britain is leaving the political institution of the European Union but remains a member of the European democratic family. However, according to Lakoff (Moral Politics 155), the political family metaphor traditionally belongs to the state’s relationship and its citizens. It permits understanding the nation through the Jens of what is known about the family. For example, the government aims to protect the citizens as parents protect their children (Musolff Political Metaphor 26). Similarly, Ringmar (61) states that a father’s responsibility is to show a personal interest in his family members and think of their well-being. Accordingly, the state which regards children as its subjects is paternalistic (Schapiro 715-38). Such a state thinks and acts on behalf The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 93 of the people. It also imposes discipline and regulations to protect them from the unexpected, the harmful, and often from themselves. However, it is essential to note that pure patriarchalism is quite rare. A society built on a family model is likely to allow a measure of debate (Ringmar 61). In addition, the conceptual metaphor of the NATION IS A FAMILY is central in a system of conceptualisations of society in US politics. Lakoff (Moral Politics 44-64) analyses conservative and liberal ideologies in the United States in terms of two versions of the NATION IS A FAMILY metaphor: the Strict Father and the Nurturant Parent family models. They are culturally bound variants of traditional male and female family models, each containing a set of moral values. However, this source domain is not characteristic of American politics and can be applied to other nations (Musolff, Metaphor 5). Lakoff (Moral Politics 33-34) demonstrates that morality is equated through metaphors with discipline, authority, order, boundaries, homogeneity, purity, and self-interest in the Strict Father model. These qualities underpin many common themes in American society: the Puritan virtues, desire for strong government, priority of property rights, emphasis on economic development and favouring of a family (Goatly 383). Furthermore, according to Lakoff (Moral Politics 33-34), the Strict Father model is built on the idea of a traditional nuclear family, with the father having high authority to establish strict rules for the children. Such rhetoric has considerable success with mainstream audience who feel touched by family- related words, for example, duty, service, moral values, strength, courage, a lovely home, children, an amazing wife, my family comes first, the love of my life, which were present in Donald Trump’s speech endlessly (Musolff, Political Metaphor 26). (2) We are all brothers and all sisters. We share one home. One destiny and one glorious American flag. We are united together by history and by providence (Trump, Rally Speech in Florida). On the other hand, in the Nurturant Parent family model, according to Lakoff (Moral Politics 33), love, empathy and nurturance are leading factors. Thus, children become responsible and self-sufficient because they are cared for and respected in their family (Musolff Political Metaphor 26). Liberal ideology is based on the Nurturant Parent model, which understands empathy in terms of morality. It is charged with allusions to liberal moral values, such as grace, gratitude, candour, courage, compassion, honour. Consequently, these values are viewed as ‘soft’ and contrasted to ‘strong’ conservative morals (Mihas 126). In continuation, Goatly (385) parallels the Strict Father and the Nurturant parent moralities with the (neo-)Darwinian stress on competition as contrasted to The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.94 Olha Lapka the Gaian emphasis on interdependence and symbiosis. At the same time, both the Strict Father and Nation-as-a-Family metaphors emphasise the Father’s ‘solemn duty to protect’, ‘to secure’, serve’, ‘to guard’ his family (Mihas 126). (3) My job is to act. To make the right call. To use every tool at my disposal to protect our country, to protect you, to protect your children (Cameron, Last-ditch plea). David Cameron employs this kind of rhetoric in order to build his image as a protective and reliable ‘father of the nation’ and to gain citizens’ confidence. Nevertheless, Goatly (386) criticises Lakoff’s distinction of two moral systems. His first argument is that it is impossible to mark a clear distinction between conservative and liberal policies regarding the Strict Father and the Nurturant Parent models. For instance, there is a contradiction in the fact that the government is seen as a strict father because the conservatives see government control as an illegitimate authority, and lay stress on small government, free enterprise not restricted by government regulation (Lakoff Moral Politics 78). In addition, Musolff (Metaphor 12) further develops the idea of a socio- political entity of the state as a FAMILY, embracing married parents and their children. In this sense, the concepts FAMILY, LOVE RELATIONSHIP and MARRIAGE are used in reference to the relationships with other countries, within the nation, between government and citizens and among members of the government and state institutions. As a result, according to Musolff (Metaphor 12; Political Metaphor 31), in various combinations, these concepts construct three mini narratives, which remind drama or soap opera plots: a. parent-child relationships that are connected with solidarity and hierarchy-authority: baby, children, cousins across the channel, family, godparents, mother, orphan, and parents; b. married life of the EU couple (ic. international relations within other countries); all kinds of marriage problems from adultery, separation, divorce, to marriage of convenience, and renewed nuptials; c. love/marriage relationship (and problems) within the state and its institutions: couple, courting, divorce, flirting, engagement, honeymoon, joint account, love, love affair, love at first sight, marriage of convenience, nuptials, partnership, romance, separation, suitors, tie the knot, (love) triangle, wedding, (marriage) vows, and woo. 4.2. NATION IS A BODY The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 95 The application of source domains of the human body to state institutions has had along tradition in political discourse, dating back to antiquity (Musolff, Metaphor 72). Body-based metaphors, ‘body politic’, ‘branches of government’, ‘head of state? among them, are widely used in political discourse to describe political situations and processes (Carver and Picalo 1). It is interesting to note that the use of the NATION Is A BODY metaphor traces its origins back to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and is observed in the works of Plato and Aristotle (The Republic, Timaios, and Politics) (Musolff, Political Metaphor 55). Ina similar vein, Goatly (73) traces it back as far as Plato and Cicero. According to Musolff (Political Metaphor 55), they present two main NATION IS A BODY metaphor scenarios: 1) functional-anatomical hierarchy of the state as a political body from the head, down to the feet; 2) state of health of the country. These scenarios are well- illustrated by the parallel between health and social harmony. Just as in the Hippocratic tradition where bodily health can be gained by harmony and balance of all organs, so the health of society is achieved only by harmonious functioning of the unified parts of the body politic (Goatly 73). Later on, this metaphor was incorporated into the Christian theological traditions, especially concerning ideas from Old Testament texts in which the chosen people are described as the Lord’s body (Musolff, Political Metaphor 55). Similarly, Ringmar (58) affirms that the body metaphor originated in the Church. According to the Medieval philosophical tradition, the Church had two bodies: temporal and transcendental; the former was the Church people belonged to while on earth, and the latter was the eternal Church in the heaven. Later on, with the emergence of the sovereign state, this corporal interpretation was steadily secularised and obtained a political application. As a result, as Goatly (361) points out, the metaphor conceptualising society in terms of human body was commonly used from the twelfth to the sixteenth century in England. This analogy to a human body allowed us to rationalise and justify social inequality and order. Thus, society is seen as an organism consisting of different parts and organs. Thus, the parallels were drawn between social classes and bodily organs: the aristocracy was seen as the ‘arm’, the clergy was considered as the ‘heart’, the peasants and merchants are the ‘stomach’, and finally, the king is the ‘head of state’ (Ringmar 59). All these organs have their own functions. Likewise, each social class performs corresponding functions in society, such as prayer, defence, trade, or cultivating the land. In conformity with this division of social roles, each layer of society should receive the means corresponding to its position and request no more (Goatly 361). In addition, the body metaphor is based on hierarchy. Although the organs which form the state have different functions and positions, the state’s hierarchical The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.96 Olha Lapka structure is a prerequisite for maintaining the social order. Because of their completely different functions, social classes depend on each other (Ringmar 59). Therefore, Ringmar (59) states that conflicts are unthinkable in a state perceived as a body because the heart cannot be at war with the stomach. On the contrary, all classes must depend on each other for the accurate functioning of the whole state. For example, the head’s duty to care for all body members is combined with the duty to cure any illness, including the amputation of any afflicted organ. This illness therapy scenario, borrowed from the Bible, represents a general examination of diseases in the body politic (John of Salisbury 105). It is necessary to add that the body politic metaphor has survived up to the present. For example, some of its aspects have also become fixed expressions, such as head of state, head of government, body of law, (long) arm of the law, organ (of a party), or heart of a community, which is illustrated by the following examples (Musolff, Political Metaphor 60). Furthermore, a wide range of body- based metaphors can be noted in British and American political discourse. The most prominent body-based concepts are head, heart, hand, limb, arm, leg, belly, face , blood, cancer, infection, wound, poison, and operation-amputation (Musolff, Metaphor 73). Thus, according to Musolff (Metaphor 79), the mapping from the source domain of life-body-health concepts to the target domain of political institutions is rendered in the forms of the following scenarios: a. _ LIFE CYCLE: an institution as a human body is born, it survives and grows up, and when an institution stops functioning, it dies; b. HEALTH / ILLNESS: an institution suffers from injuries and diseases, receives medical treatment and recovers; c. Bony: the parts of an institution are organs of its body. (4) We are one people, with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same flag (Trump, Congress speech). Donal Trump alludes to the concept of shared blood in order to underline the unity of the whole nation and thus to evoke patriotic feelings in the audience. (5) Our political system is so paralyzed by gridlock and dysfunction that most Americans have lost confidence that anything can actually get done. And they’ve lost trust in the ability of both government and Big Business to change course (Clinton, Campaign launch). American political system is described in terms of paralysis and dysfunction as if it could not function in favour of the Americans. It aims to convince the audience that Hillary Clinton’s policy will return the trust and confidence of the American people. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 97 All in all, Musolff (Political Metaphor 61) concludes that the physical body of a politician is a direct target referent of various manifestations of the phrase body politic in language. However, the phrase itself refers to an implicit target, in other words, to the politician’s standing, power and status. 4.3, POLITICS IS WAR One of the most common groups of metaphors in English used for conceptualising different political activities is fighting. It helps to make prominent the aspect of competition (Goatly 72). Moreover, the representations of politics in terms of the conceptual metaphor of POLITICS IS WAR serve to simplify complex and universal political topics into a military campaign that had to be won. Thus, war-based metaphors present an antagonistic view on socio-political relationships (Musolff, Political Metaphor 12). Beyond making political activities look like war, military metaphors also contribute to presenting war as an ordinary event. This observation illustrates the special significance of military expenditure for governments (Goatly 74). ‘The POLITICS 18 WAR metaphor is characterised by the domain transferal of the lexical field of concepts related to war (e.g. war, bartle, and strategy) to particular political notions (c.g. clections, political negotiations, and energy crisis). Lexical elements normally used in the metaphor are words and phrases such as battle, declare/lose! win war (Musolff, Political Metaphor 10). Nevertheless, according to Musolff (Political Metaphor 13), a lot of war expressions, for instance, attack, strategy, win, are linked rather to fighting or conflict in general than specifically to the notion of war. (6) Now, the second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong (Clinton, Campaign launch). The term ‘the second fight’ in this fragment from Hillary Clinton’s speech can be interpreted as the application of the war-related language to social problems in order to show the serious steps needed to be taken to make America prosperous. In addition, the POLITICS Is WAR metaphor uses general fighting lexemes in combination with specific war vocabulary which comprises traditional and archaic war terms (e.g. warpath) as well as 20th-21st century military language (e.g. nuclear option). Besides, the use of phraseology (c.g. march troops up the hill) also aims to evoke particular associations and refer listeners to popular nursery rhymes, for instance, “The Grand Old Duke of York”. Such a combination of lexemes and idioms that appeal to people’s background knowledge is easily understood by the public (Musolff, Political Metaphor 15). However, Goatly (74) ‘The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.98 Olha Lapka sets forth that, apart from the themes of elections, terrorism, and policies, war- based metaphors can also interpret a range of other activities. For instance, such expressions as fight for justice, fight disease and poverty, combat crime, crusade against radicalisation are common in political discourse when it is necessary to highlight such burning issues as justice, crimes, poverty, medical treatment, social inequality. (7) Lwant you to know — we will never stop fighting for justice (Trump, Congress speech). The use of the words from the lexical field of war makes the audience think of justice in terms of fighting, which usually involves a large amount of people wounded and dead. Consequently, the metaphor implies that the target is challenging to achieve and has to be conquered. (8) We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, 0 free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow (Trump, Inaugural address). Resorting to the war-based metaphors, Donald Trump intends to demonstrate the strength of America and its ability to tackle all the challenges. In addition, America is shown as the only power able to stop diseases and epidemics around the globe. (9) And in the European Union, with 27 countries behind us, we can take a stronger lead in tackling climate change... fighting disease and poverty... standing up to Russian aggression (Cameron, Last-ditch plea). The war-based metaphors actualise the most relevant global issues of climate change, diseases, poverty and aggression. Thus, the audience perceives them in terms of fighting and battles, which have to be started and won, no matter how difficult and bloody they may be. 4.4. POLITICS IS A GAME Another conceptual metaphor inherent to political discourse is POLITICS IS A GAME. Anglo-American political systems are generally regarded as contflictive. Consequently, game- and sports-based metaphors are quite common in politics since both politics and sports have winners and losers, require strategies and choices, and are unpredictable as a matter of principle (Partington 220). Therefore, the POLITICS IS A GAME metaphor is characterized by the application of the lexical elements of games and sports concepts in relation to particular political notions The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 99 (eg. elections, political debates, political negotiations, and dealing with social problems). The opposite sides are described as players. For example, the game metaphor is realized in political speeches by the lexemes and idiomatic expressions such as play a small ball, play politics, fair play, a zero game play, pick up the game, a level playing field, and team (Mihas 134). (10) Because trade is not a zero sum game: more of it makes us all more prosperous. Free trade between Britain and the European Union means more trade, and more trade means more jobs and more wealth creation (May, Brexit speech). In her Brexit speech, Theresa May opposes trade to ‘a zero sum game’, that is, acontest in which one person’s loss is equal to the other person’s gain (CED). Thus, she emphasizes the importance of maintaining trade relations with the European Union on equal terms. (11) If we do not hold a general election now, their political game playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election. [...] This is your moment to show you mean it, to show you are not opposing the government for the sake of it, to show that you do not treat politics as a game (May, Address). The game-based metaphor in the fragment from Theresa May’s speech displays the competitive nature of the electioneering campaign. Theresa May opposes her own political position to those of her opponents, calling them ‘game playing’, referring to them as unreliable. This fact, therefore, implies her seriousness in political matters. (12) And I know it from my own life. More than a few times, I've had to pick myself up and get back in the game (Clinton, Speech at the Democratic Convention). Hillary Clinton describes her struggles, past failures and her return to the political career, referring to the metaphor of POLITICS IS A GAME, which is aimed to evoke a particular association of politics as a competitive activity. Therefore, it creates the image of Hillary Clinton as a strong leader who can compete and win. (13) You want fair trade deals and a level playing field. We don’t have a level playing field. Because you understand that when American workers win, America as a country wins and wins big. And every country over the last long period of time has been taking advantage of the [inaudible] of our politicians. It’s not going to happen any longer (Trump, Rally speech in Florida). The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.100 Olha Lapka Using the idiomatic expression ‘a level playing field’, which means a situation in which none of the competing parties has an advantage at the outset of a competitive activity (CED), Donald Trump emphasizes that America’s trust and kindness have always been exploited by other countries. Therefore, certain ‘measures are required to renovate a superior position of the USA among other nations. Overall, the POLITICS IS A GAME metaphor makes listeners understand the political events and decisions from the perspective of sports competitions, which always involves rivals, effort, and struggles to win, victory and defeat. However, the results of games and competitions are usually unpredictable. This allows drawing a parallel with politics where in many cases, the outcomes of political actions are left to chance and a combination of luck. 5. Discussion of the results After having studied the conceptual metaphors characteristic of political discourse, it is crucial to assess the distribution of metaphors by the variables of discourse type, the politician’s personality, their affiliation to political parties, and gender. The following table provides the quantitative distribution of the conceptual metaphors identified in the analysed political speeches eld lay Clatoa Total Dest Ta Taal Tasp Cameron Nay body 7 use 8 | pees 7 | ass) ame ‘@ tty Ose ae ‘& oa 6 me | mse Sees Toul a a | Table 1. Distribution of conceptual domains in American and British political discourse Table 1 shows that in the course of persuasion, the politicians frequently resort to family and war metaphors, and to a lesser extent body metaphors and game metaphors. It is worth noticing that David Cameron’s discourse is characterised by the most frequent use of body metaphors and with the lowest rate of game metaphors, unlike other politicians in the analysed speeches. Similarly, Theresa May mostly uses war-related metaphors. At the same time, Hillary The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 101 Clinton resorts to war and family metaphors, although conceptual domains of body are rarely used in her speeches. In like manner, the frequent application of the war and family domains distinguishes Donald Trump’s speeches. It is interesting to note the almost equal rate of war metaphor in the speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Theresa May. This is further illustrated in figure | below. The first chi-square test (table 2) proved that the observed value of a politician for a particular case is related to its value for metaphor type. The frequency of the value of politician by metaphor type is further illustrated by figure 1. The selection of metaphor types according to the politicians’ personalities is defined by different political images that all four politicians intend to create. Test Statistic |Df__|P-Value. [(Chi-Square [43.822 12 0.0000 Table 2. Tests of Independence of Politician by Metaphor Type Divid Cameo DomidTum iE Hillary Clinton Theresa May oO 5 10 15 «6200 258085 = NATION IS A FAMILY & POLITICS IS A WAR m= POLITICS IS AGAME STATE IS A BODY Figure 1. Distribution of Conceptual Metaphors in Relation to the Politician ‘The second chi-square test (table 3) proved that the value of discourse type for a particular case is related to its value for metaphor type. The frequency of the value of discourse type by metaphor type is further illustrated in figure 2. These results can be explained by the fact that David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump represent different political traditions — that of Great Britain and the USA. These countries have a common language but different political systems that determine the selection of distinct conceptual metaphors in political speeches. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.102 Olha Lapka Test Statistic Df __|P-Value Chi-Square (30.717 4 0.0000, Table 3. Tests of Independence of Discourse Type by Metaphor Type lL. British on I, American 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 = NATION IS A FAMILY = POLITICS IS A WAR POLITICS IS AGAME STATE IS A BODY Figure 2. Distribution of Conceptual Metaphors in Relation to the Discourse Type From figure 2, it becomes apparent that the quantity of conceptual metaphors in American discourse is significantly higher than in British one. The most frequent conceptual metaphors in American discourse are based on the domain of, war, with the domains of family, body and game being used with a slightly lower frequency. Similarly, British political discourse is characteristic of a high rate of family, body, and war domains. On the other hand, it shows a tendency for a significantly lower rate of the game domain. ‘The third chi-square test (table 4) proved that the value of political party for a particular case is related to its value for metaphor type. The frequency of the value of political party by the metaphor type is further illustrated by figure 3. Each political party has its own ideology, which influences the entire structure of a political campaign. Consequently, politicians choose conceptual metaphors interpreting their ideologies. Test | Statistic |Df__|P-Value Chi-Square 32.194, 8 0.0001 Table 4. Tests of Independence of Political Party by Metaphor Type The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 103 Democratic | Republican oO 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 = NATION IS A FAMILY & POLITICS IS A WAR POLITICS IS A GAME @ STATE IS A BODY Figure 3. Distribution of Conceptual Metaphors in Relation to Political Party Figure 3 demonstrates that all political parties tend to use conceptual war metaphors. However, in the Democratic party, war source domains are significantly higher than in other parties. It is also worth noticing a relatively small number of game metaphors and the most extensive number of body metaphors in the Conservative party. At the same time, it is interesting to mention that the amount of family metaphors is almost equal in all parties. The fourth chi-square test (table 5) proved that the value of gender is not related to its value for metaphor type since the P-value is higher than 0.05. The frequency of the value of gender by the metaphor type is further illustrated by figure 4. These results demonstrate that Hillary Clinton and Theresa May do not stress their gender. On the contrary, being women, they present themselves as integral parts of the world of politics. Test Statistic Df _|P-Value [Chi-Square 4.523 4 [0.3399 Table 5. Tests of Independence of Gender by Metaphor Type The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110, ISSN: 1137-005X.104 Olha Lapka ime Male Tbs 0 10 20 30 40 50 = NATION IS A FAMILY = POLITICS IS A WAR = POLITICS ISGAME = STATE IS. A BODY Figure 4. Distribution of Conceptual Metaphors in Relation to Gender As can be observed in figure 4, both female and male politicians resort to family and body with equal frequency. However, the female’s speeches are characterised by a considerably higher number of war and game metaphors than the speeches delivered by male politicians. 6. Conclusions The article aimed to study the persuasive potential of conceptual metaphors in political discourse and define their role in political communication. It has become apparent that language is a significant tool of persuasion since it contains the means by which political discourse is transmitted to the community. Thus, language patterns in relation to power, which are used deliberately as a persuasive tool, reinforce contact with the audience and provide grounds for the achievement of political goals. Therefore, conceptual metaphors are used persuasively to transmit politically efficient messages to the audience in order to gain political power. This manifestation of power is fully realised in political discourse through conceptual metaphors (Fairclough 23). The article concentrated on conceptual metaphors with the source domains of family, body, war, and game (NATION IS A FAMILY, NATION IS A BODY, POLITICS 1S A WAR, and POLITICS IS A GAME), Which were identified and analysed in the transcripts of 28 political speeches delivered by David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump. The data analysis shows a strong tendency of both British and US politicians for the use of POLITICs 1s A WAR metaphor. The antagonistic character of political activities can explain it. At the same time, politicians interpret politics in terms of game to a lesser extent. Moreover, a statistical analysis was employed in order to determine whether the variables of discourse type, politicians, political parties and gender are related The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 105 to the variable of metaphor type. The results of chi-square tests demonstrate that the choice of the source domains depends on the type of discourse (e.g. American or British), the politicians’ personalities (e.g. David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May or Donald Trump), and the political parties they are affiliated with (e.g. Conservative, Republican or Democratic). However, the gender of the politicians does not make an impact on the use of conceptual metaphors. In addition, it is possible to define the following persuasive functions of conceptual metaphors in the political speeches under analysis: = to show that the economy and political system are in crisis and, thus, immediate actions should be taken (STATE IS A BODY; POLITICS IS A WAR); = to create an emotional appeal and unify the nation (NATION IS A FAMILY); = to represent the nation as a unified organism where all citizens should perform their roles in order to guarantee the proper functioning of the whole country (STATE IS A BODY); = to reveal the antagonistic and competitive character of politics (POLITICS IS A WAR; POLITICS IS A GAME); = to show the unpredictable nature of political activities and in such a way to justify possible negative outcomes of political decisions (POLITICS 15 A GAME). Allin all, conceptual metaphors are powerful means of persuasion in political discourse as they make it easier for politicians to convince citizens to support them and, thus, get into power. WORKS CITED Angouri, Jo. “Quantitative, Qualitative or Both? Combining Methods in Linguistic Research.” Research Methods in Linguistics. Ed. Lia Litosseliti. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 29-45. Baxter, Judith. “Discourse-Analytic Approaches to Text and Talk.” Research Methods in Linguistics. Ed. Lia Litosseliti. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 117-37 Carver, Terrell., and Jemej Pikalo. “Editors” introduction.” Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. Eds. Carver, Tarrell and Jernej Pikalo. Routledge, 2008, pp. 1-11. DOE https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203931233 The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.106 Olha Lapka Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. DOL hutps://doi.org/10,1057/9780230319899 Chilton, Paul., and Christina Schiiffner. “Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse.” Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Eds. Chilton, Paul and Christina Schaffner. John Benjamins, 2002, pp. 3-41 DOL hutps://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4 Collins English Dictionary, hitps://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english Accessed 11 Mar. 2020. Croft, William., and D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOT: https://doiorg/10.1017/CBO97805 11803864 Druldk, Petr. “Identifying and Assessing Metaphors: Discourse on EU Reform.” Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. Eds. Carver, Tarrell and Jemej Pikalo. Routledge, 2008, pp. 105-18. Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. Routledge, 2001. Fairclough, Norman., and Ruth Wodak. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse as Social Interaction, vol. 2. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. Sage, 1997, pp. 258- 84. Goatly, Andrew. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. John Benjamins, 2007. DOL: https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 Harris, Peter. B. Foundation of Political Science. London: Hutchinson, 1976. Jones, Jason., and Jean S. Peccei. “Language and Politics.” Language Society and Power: An Introduction. Eds. Singh Ishtla and Jean S. Peccei. Routledge, 2004, pp. 35-54. DOL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203426968_chapter_3 Jowett, Garth. S., and Victoria O'Donnell. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE, 2012 Lakoff, George. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge University Press, 1993 pp. 202-51. DOL: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 ---. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. University of Chicago Press, 1996. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago University Press, 1980. Lakoff, Robin. T. The Language War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. DOI: https://doiorg/10.1525/9780520928077 The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 107 Levon, Erez. “Organizing and Processing Your Data: The Nuts and Bolts of Quantitative Analyses.” Research Methods in Linguistics. Ed. Lia Litosseliti. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 68-92. Mihas, Elena. “Non-literal Language in Political Discourse.” LSO Working Papers in Linguistics. vol. 5, 2005, pp. 124-39. Miller, Gerald R. “On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions.” Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research. Eds. Roloff, Michael E., and Gerald. R. Miller. Beverly Hills: SAGE, 1980, pp. 11-28. Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. DOI: https:/doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 ---. Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Newmark, Peter. About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1991. Partington, Alan. The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. Routledge, 2003 Perrez, Julien., and Min Reuchamps. “Deliberate Metaphors in Political Discourse: The Case of Citizen Discourse.” Metaphorik, vol. 25, 2014, pp. 7-41, hups://www.metaphorik.de/en/book/exporv/html/421 Accessed 18 Mar. 2020. Pragglejaz Group. “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 22. no. 1, 2007. pp. 1-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752, Ringmar, Erik. “Metaphors of Social Order.” Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. Eds. Carver, Tarrell and Jernej Pikalo. Routledge, pp. 57-68 Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. “Persuasion in judicial argumentation: the opinions of the advocates general at the European Court of Justice.” Persuasion Across Genres. Eds. Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen. John Benjamins, 2005, pp. 59-101. DOL: https://doi org/10.1075/pbns.130,06sal Schapiro, Tamar. “What Is a Child?” Ethics, vol. 109, 1999, pp. 715-38. DOT: hty loi.org/10.1086/233943 Semino, Elena. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press, 2008. Silverman, David. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: SAGE, 2006. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.108 Olha Lapka Steen, Gerard J., et al. Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From mip to mipvu. John Benjamins, 2010. DOK: https://doi.org/10.1075/celer.14 Steen, Gerard J. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. John Benjamins, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/celer.10 Trosborg, Anna. Text Typology and Translation. John Benjamins, 1997. DOI: hups://doi.org/10.1075/bu1.26 Van Dijk, Teun A. Racism and the Press. Routledge, 1991. ---. “Multi-disciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity”. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Eds. Wodak Ruth and Michael Meyer. Sage, 2001, pp. 95-119. DOT: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.nS “Political Discourse and Ideology.” Jornadas del Discurso Politico de UPF, l-ideo.htm Accessed 19 Oct. 2019 --. “Political Discourse and Political Cognition.” Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Eds. Chilton, Paul and Christina Schiffner. John Benjamins, 2002, pp. 203-37. DOL htips://doi.org/10.1075/dapsae.4.11dij Virtanen, Tuija., and Helena Halmari. “Persuasion Across Genres: Emerging Perspectives.” Persuasion Across Genres. Eds. Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen. John Benjamins, 2005, pp. 3-27. DOL hutps://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.03vir http://www _discourses.or; ILLUSTRATION MATERIALS Cameron, David. Lasi-ditch Plea for Britain to Remain. Independent, 21 Jun. 2016, _https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum- brexit-latest-live-david-cameron-full-speech-remain-leave- 27093426 html Accessed 20 Sept. 2017. Cameron, David. Speech on Europe at Chatham House. GOV.UK, 10 Nov. 2015, hitps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on- europe Clinton, Hillary. Campaign Launch Speech. Time, 13 Jun. 2015, http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign- launch/ Accessed 22 Sept. 2017. Clinton, Hillary. Speech at the Democratic Convention. The New York Times, 28 Jul. 2016, _ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary- clinton-dne-transcript.html?mcubz=0 Accessed 22 Sept. 2017. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.Language of persuasion: analysis of conceptual metaphors... 109 The New York Times, 18 Apr. 2017, https://www nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/europe/uk-theresa-ma speech-transcript.html?mcubz=0 Accessed 24 Sept. 2017. May, Theresa. Brexit Speech. The Telegraph, 17 Jan. 2017, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politices/2017/0 1/1 7/theresa-mays-brexit- speech-full/ Accessed 24 Sept. 2017. Trump, Donald. Congress. Speech. CNN, Ol Mar. 2017, hutps://edition cnn .com/2017/02/28/politics/donald -trump-speech- transcript-full-text/index.html Accessed 21 Sept. 2017. Trump, Donald. Inaugural Address. CNN, 21 Jan. 2017, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/0 1/20/politics/trump-inaugural- addresvindex.html Accessed 21 Sept. 2017. Trump, Donald. Rally Speech in Florida. The Palm Beach Post, 18 Feb. 2017, https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript- trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLOQmWclIKndWBOM/ Accessed 21 Sept. 2017. Received September 13 2021 Revised version accepted December 12 2021 The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28 (2021): 85-110. ISSN: 1137-005X.