Abstract
One of the main purposes of political speeches is to persuade others of one’s opinion. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the floor of a democratically elected legislative body, where legislators gain floor time to convince others of the validity of their points of view. One method political leaders employ to this end, either consciously or unconsciously, involves incorporating appropriate conceptual metaphors into their speeches. Recent work has focused on the analysis of metaphors used by presidents and prime ministers (Charteris-Black 2004, 2005, 2007, Chilton and Ilyin 1993, Lu and Ahrens 2008, Semino and Masci 1996). However, less attention has been spent on political leaders at the next level of statesmanship: the senators, cabinet ministers and members of parliament, an area which several chapters in this volume now address (Chs 5, 7–9 and 12). In this chapter, we examine the use of lexemes associated with two conceptual metaphor models in US senatorial speech from 2000 to early 2007 in order to determine if gender, political party affiliation, or a combination of both gender and party in the US Senate influences the conceptual models invoked by the senators. We find that as a group, senators do not invoke a particular conceptual model on the basis of gender. Instead, the conceptual model most often invoked across all groups is the model that Lakoff (1996/2002) postulates to be associated with the Democratic political party.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ahrens, K. 2006. ‘Using a Small Corpus to Test Linguistic Hypotheses: Evaluating “People” in the State of the Union Addresses’. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 11 (4): 377–92.
Ahrens, K. Forthcoming. ‘Examining Conceptual Worldviews through Lexical Frequency Patterns: a Case Study of US Presidential Speeches’, in Hans-Joerg Schmid (ed.) Windows to the Mind.Applications of Cognitive Linguistics Series. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: the Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. 2007. The Communication of Leadership: the Design of Leadership Style. London and New York: Routledge.
Chilton, P. and M. Ilyin. 1993. ‘Metaphor in Political Discourse: the Case of the “Common European House”’. Discourse and Society, 4 (1): 7–31.
Cienki, A. 2004. ‘Bush’s and Gore’s Language and Gestures in the 2000 US Presidential Debates: a Test Case for Two Models of Metaphors’. Journal of Language and Politics, 3 (3): 409–40.
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’ in Lagerwerf, Luuk, Wilbert Spooren and Liesbeth Degand (eds) Identifying Information and Tenor in Texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–39.
Gibbs, R. 1999. ‘Taking Metaphor out of our Heads and Putting it into the Cultural World’, in Raymond Gibbs and Gerard Steen (eds) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145–66.
Hart, R., S. Jarvis, W. Jennings, and D. Smith-Howell. 2005. Political Keywords: Using Language that Uses Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: a Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1996/2002. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t. [2nd edn published as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lim, E. 2002. ‘Five Trends in Presidential Rhetoric: Analysis of Rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton’. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 328–66.
Lim, E. 2008. The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: the Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lu, L. and K. Ahrens. 2008. ‘Ideological Influences on BUILDING metaphors in Taiwanese Presidential Speeches’. Discourse and Society, 19(3): 383–408.
Scott, A. J. and G. A. Seber. 1983. Difference of Proportions from the Same Survey’. The American Statistician, 3 7: 319–20.
Semino, E. and M. Masci. 1996. ‘Politics is Football: Metaphor in the Discourse of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy’. Discourse & Society, 7 (2).
Steen, G. 1994. Understanding Metaphor in Literature. New York/London: Longman.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Kathleen Ahrens and Sophia Yat Mei Lee
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ahrens, K., Lee, S.Y.M. (2009). Gender versus Politics: When Conceptual Models Collide in the US Senate. In: Ahrens, K. (eds) Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-30127-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-24523-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)