The political argument is primarily focused on getting the recipient’s partiality in relation to the statement of

the issuer. Successful politicians have to be informative but at the same time persuasive. Their language has to be
influential because they probably want their messages to be remembered. Lakoff (1991, 2002, 2004, 2008) believes
that politicians, using metaphors in political issues, set the framework in which voters then think about certain issues.
The scope of this paper does not permit a detailed presentation of the theory and divisions related to the
conceptual metaphor. The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing or phenomenon
in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson, 2004, 3-5; Kövecses, 2002, 4-6; Lakoff and Johnson, 2004, 7-14; Stanojević,
2009, 341; Kövecses, 2002, 4). By using 3. ZBORNIK SVEUČILIŠTA U DUBROVNIKU 80
 metaphorical expressions drawn from the source domain, the target domain is understood better and the
correspondence between these two domains is referred to as mapping (Stanojević, 2013, 37-82; Kövecses, 2002).
Metaphors within these theories are based on the physical experience, perceptions and schemes. At the level of
language use, metaphorical expressions drawn from the source domain are called linguistic metaphors.
Lakoff and Johnson (2004, 15-46) divide conceptual metaphors according to their cognitive role into three
main groups: structural, ontological and orientational. In structural metaphors, one concept is realized with the help
of the other, and the examples of such metaphors are LIFE IS A JOURNEY or TIME IS MONEY. In orientational
metaphors, the entire system of terms is organised in relation to the other, such as in the examples HEALTH AND
LIFE ARE UP, DISEASE AND DEATH ARE DOWN. Orientational metaphors are based on our physical and cultural
experience. Experiences with concrete physical objects, and especially the body, lay a foundation to create an
ontological metaphor, which is the third type of metaphors. Ontological metaphors are created either by reification or
personification (Charteris-Black, 2005, 15). By using the reification, or the concretization of the abstract event, the
actions and emotions become shaped entities or physical objects. Lakoff and Johnson (2004, 36-38) mention THE
INFLATION IS THE ENTITY or THE SOUL IS A FRAGILE OBJECT as examples of an ontological metaphor
based on reification. Personification is further considered to be the most common ontological metaphor. Appearances,
associations, social movements etc. are explained with the help of categories common to people, based on our
motivation, goals, activities and characteristics (Lakoff and Johnson, 2004, 44-45; Čulić, 2003, 81-92; Kanižaj, 2010)
Personification is an ontological metaphor, which, according to Kövesces (2002, 35) “uses for the source domain one
of the best, ourselves”. This metaphor is common in the political discourse. It is used to give human characteristics to
political parties, institutions or certain events, which influences the development of positive or negative associations
in recipients.
The conscious use of certain conceptual metaphors can affect people’s view on what is being talked about
(Stanojević, 2013, 122). According to recent literature on political metaphors (Lakoff, 2002, 2004, 2008; Charteris-
Black, 2004; Santa Anna, 2002; Budaev, 2006, 2007; Chilton, 2004; Goatly, 2007; Koller and Semino, 2009; Westen,
2007; Kanižaj, 2010) most frequent underlying conceptual metaphors in political discourse are POLITICAL TOPIC IS
REIFICATION, POLITICS/ POLITICAL TOPIC IS PERSON AND POLITICAL TOPIC IS JOURNEY / DESTINATION. The
preliminary interview analysis performed on the interviews in this paper shows that the above mentioned
metaphors are dominant.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Theoretical framework
Metaphor and metonymy in political discourse analysis
Chilton and Schäffner suggest metaphor to be “a crucial conceptual and semantic
mechanism in the production of political meaning” (1997, p. 221). They distinguish
between two interrelated frameworks – a cognitive approach and an interactive
approach – in the analysis of political metaphors. Within the former framework,
metaphor is seen as a cognitive device to conceptualize and communicate the
possibly problematic issues of reality. Within the latter framework, metaphor is
tackled as a linguistic means to avoid direct “face-threatening and over-revealing”
communication (Chilton and Schäffner, 1997, p. 222).
Research on political metaphor from a cognitive perspective is best represented
in Lakoff’s studies (1992, 1996, 2003). In his articles on the use, misuse
and abuse of metaphor to justify the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf wars, Lakoff (1992,
2003; cf. Gibbs, 1994) shows how the initially neither good nor bad metaphorical
thought can be materialized in metaphors that can kill. This happens when
metaphorical discourse “hides reality in a harmful way” (G. Lakoff, 1992, p. 463,
cf. G. Lakoff, 2003) and justifies infliction of pain, death and starvation which are
92
Vilma BI JEIKI ENĖ, Almantė MEŠKAUSKI ENĖ
non-metaphorical and very much real. In American war discourse, G. Lakoff accentuates
such metaphorical mappings as ‘war as politics’, ‘politics as business’,
‘state-as-person’, ‘war as violent crime’, ‘war as a competitive game’, etc. For
example, the ‘politics as business’ metaphor entails the “cost-benefit” calculation
whereby a war is determined by the “gains” from going to war outweighing its
“costs” (G. Lakoff, 1992, p. 464). In the case of ‘state-as-person’, the metaphor
highlights the unity of national interest and hides the heterogeneity of society
where different groups of people are effected differently by the ‘gains’ and ‘costs’
of the war. In the conclusion of the first article, G. Lakoff expresses his concern
about “the ignorance” and “the failure” to see what metaphors hide and if new,
“more benign”, metaphors could be introduced (1992, p. 481). In the conclusion
of the second article, he emphasizes that, even though his analysis will not stop
the war, what matters is awareness: “being able to articulate what is going on can
change what is going on – at least in the long run” (G. Lakoff, 2003).

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/

2.1 Political discourse

Politics can be defined in the light of different theoretical perspectives. Chilton (2004), for example,
offers two different views on politics. According to him (Chilton, 2004, p. 3), it can be seen as ‘’a
struggle for power’’ between those who want to consolidate and keep their power and those who try
to dispute it, or as a society’s institutions and practices that resolve various conflicts of interest over
money, influence, independence, emancipation, and so forth. Furthermore, Chilton (2004) asserts
that these two views correspond to two levels of politics, micro-level which involves clashes of
interest, struggle for power or attempts to achieve collaboration between individuals and between
various social groups, and macro-level which refers to a state’s political institutions whose role is to
resolve various conflicts, and which serve to assert an individual’s or a group’s dominance. Chilton
(2004) also brings attention to different linguistic devices employed at the micro level, which are a
powerful tool for attaining all those goals, and which can be subsumed under the term political
discourse. At the micro-level, political discourse includes parliamentary debates, laws and so forth.
Each type of discourse has its own specific features. We agree with Chilton (2004, p. 4), who
points out that no matter how politics is defined, there is ‘’a linguistic, discursive and communicative
dimension’’ of the political action, which is partly recognized, or not recognized at all by political
practitioners and theorists. We believe that this is changing, because numerous studies have
shown that the force of language exerted upon the public is a very powerful tool in the political
arena, and can be used in various ways to influence or manipulate the public. Political discourse
has traditionally been described and analyzed among politicians, historians, but not until the early
1980s has it become a subject matter of linguistic studies (Wilson, 2005). According to Wodak
(2009) political discourse includes different genres such as political speeches, press conferences,
interviews with politicians, reports on different political events in the press and since politics
includes persuasion, rhetoric and delusive devices, politicians employ different discursive strategies
to achieve their goals. Many studies (Borčić, Kanižaj & Kršul, 2016; Howe, 1988; Wodak, 2009)
have shown that political action mirrored in different types of genres involves persuasion, what is
more, in the field of language and politics it plays the most important part. Thus persuasive
elements are present in all genres in the field of politics. Although some politicians do not
acknowledge the importance of language in the field of politics, we all witness the trend of hiring
public relation experts by political parties whose expertise in the field can contribute to achieving
goals, be it gaining or achieving power, etc. Political, as well as other types of discourse show that
language and different types of social practices are closely linked. An interesting assertion is made
by Chilton (2004) who points out that language and political behaviour are not merely instances of
social practices, but that they can be considered as based on cognitive traits of the human mind.
Thus cognitive approach to political discourse construes it as ‘’necessarily a product of individual
and collective mental processes.’’ (Chilton, 2004, p. 51)

2.2 Conceptual metaphor

Cognitive linguistics has been dealing with conceptual metaphors since 1980 when the original
model was created by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Within the framework of the cognitive
theory, conceptual metaphor has since been widely accepted. Conceptual metaphor consists of the
source domain and the target domain and represents the cognitive ability to link meanings of these
two domains. The source domain enables the understanding of the target domain (Lakoff &
Johnson, 2004). Conceptual metaphor is reflected in language as cognitive ability, which means
that two levels can be distinguished: metaphorical linguistic expression and conceptual metaphor
(Stanojević, 2009). Metaphorical expressions are also called linguistic metaphors. Mapping from
the source to the target domain in conceptual metaphor refers to correspondences between the two
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vol 8 No 1
March 2019
71
domains, hence it is a collection of our knowledge about what is being mapped to what. Apart from
mapping, metaphorical entailments are also very important, which refer to consequences of
understanding the target domain in terms of the source domain. To be more specific, metaphorical
entailments refer to understanding of certain aspects of the target domain based on understanding
and knowledge of the source domain (Stanojević, 2009). The level of conventionalization of
linguistic expression is determined by the clarity of the link between the source and the target
domain, or to what extent a particular expression evokes a conceptual metaphor (Stanojević, 2009).
In other words, the conventionalization of a metaphor depends on the perceptive abilities of
speakers of a language. Lakoff & Johnson (2004) divide metaphors into three groups: structural,
ontological and orientational. In structural metaphors, the source domain provides knowledge about
the structure of the target domain, that is ‘’one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of
another’’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 2004, p. 14). In other words, the cognitive function of these metaphors
is enabling a speaker to understand the target domain through the structure of the source domain.
This understanding occurs through mapping elements from the source to the target domain.
Ontological metaphors on the other hand do not allow cognitive structuring. They provide an
understanding of abstract concepts and experiences in terms of objects, substances or bounded
spaces. They enable us to notice the structure where it is barely noticeable or it is not noticeable at
all. Thus ‘’…our experiences with physical objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for
an extraordinarily wide variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of viewing events, activities,
emotions, ideas, etc..as entities and substances.’’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 2004, p. 25). Orientational
metaphors are mostly related to basic human spatial orientations such as up-down, in-out, frontback,
etc. They are based on our ''physical and cultural experience'' (Lakoff & Johnson, 2004, p.
25). According to Lakoff & Johnson (2004), metaphors are grounded in human experience and
neural activity in the brain. Since the human body and the brain function equally in all people,
metaphors are also universal, they are similar, at least on a conceptual level. What causes
variations depends on intercultural and intracultural influences. In other words, variations arise in
specific metaphorical linguistic expressions, which is also confirmed by the results of our research.
There are two main causes of these variations: different experiences and different cognitive
preferences and styles. In other words, metaphors vary because our experiences as human beings
vary. What affects our different experiences is the physical environment, social context, cultural
identity, cultural context, personal history and various occupations and interests (Kövecses, 2005).
2.3 Metaphor and political discourse
In political discourse the speaker's goal is to achieve persuasiveness through language. In order to
make a strong impression on the public, politicians employ various lingusitic devices to achieve
their goals. Many authors (Borčić, Kanižaj & Kršul, 2016; Howe,1988; Mio, 1997, etc.) agree on the
fact that conceptual metaphors are essential rhetorical devices used for persuading the public in
various genres of political discourse. Thus, Howe (1988) analyzed metaphors that are used by
politicians when addressing the public during their campaigns or when they talk to each other
privately about political issues creating their own jargon. Howe (1988) concluded that the dividing
line between them is far from clear-cut because language used privately easily enters public space,
but metaphors are powerful devices that can influence the public' s view on politics. Borčić, Kanižaj
& Kršul (2016) analyzed interviews with the former Croatian president Ivo Josipović with the aim of
determining the use of conceptual metaphor as a rhetorical tool in relation to positive and negative
speaking about something and discovered that personification, reification and movement were
mostly used in the interviews when discussing political topics, and that he used both affirmative and
negative statements when discussing political issues. Mio (1997), on the other hand, stated that
there are many theoretical papers on metaphors that far exceed the amount of empirical research
on the effectiveness of this rhetorical device. Consequently, it cannot be stated with certainty how
effective, or what is more, how manipulative, metaphors really are. All the authors agree on the
purpose of conceptual metaphors in political discourse in general. They are considered good
devices for simplifying certain complex concepts related to politics, economy, various social topics,
which are all frequently discussed by politicians, thus finding common ground with the public by
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vol 8 No
March 2019
72
focusing, through metaphor, on one aspect of some issue and ignoring other aspects that are
irrelevant or undiserable. Conceptual metaphors evoke concepts of war, sport, journey, disease
etc., which makes them recognizable and potentially effective with the public as in Chilton (2004)
and Lakoff & Johnson (2004). Howe (1988, p. 87) discovered that in American political discourse
metaphors are mostly related to sports and warfare which leads to conclusion that ''politics is
typically conceived as being either a rule-bound contest…or as an unpredictable exercise of
power.'' An important issue arises in relation to sports metaphors, and that is whether these
metaphors are understood by women. Howe (1988) claims that political activity has mostly been
confined to men, which may be the reason why sports metaphors are used frequently in political
discourse. We can compare his statements with Radić-Bojanić & Silaški (2008), who analyzed the
use of sports metaphors in Serbian political discourse. They claim that women mostly do not
understand sports metaphors in political discourse and that these metaphors hinder women voters
from understanding the intended political message and the overall political reality. Other authors,
such as Chilton (2004), Kövecses (2010), Lakoff & Johnson (2004) state that, besides war and
sport metaphors, frequently used metaphors in political discourse are those related to games and
sport, journey, and that personification and reification are employed creating ontological metaphors,
through which politcal party is conceived as a person, or the world of politics is conceived through
concrete objects. Thus metaphorisation, through various metaphorical expressions is an
indispensable part of political discourse.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

3. Cognitive View of Metonymy

Metonymy is traditionally regarded as a figure of speech that involves a processof substituting one
linguistic expression for another.It was basically thought of as amatter of language,especially literary
or figurative language.This view of metonymyis reflected in standard definitions,which tend to
describe metonymy as“a figure ofspeech that consists in using the name of one thing for that of
something else withwhich it is associated.”Here,metonymy is viewed as a relation in whichone
linguisticexpression“stands for”another.In recent years,with the advent of cognitive linguistics,it has
been recognized that the traditional view of metonymy is too narrow and thatmetonymy,like
metaphor,has come to be recognized as a fundamental cognitive andlinguistic phenomenon alongside
metaphorInternational Journal of English Language Education ISSN 2325-0887 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2
www.macrothink.org/ijele 37
(cf.Panther and Radden,1999;Barcelona,2000;Dirven and Pǒrings,2002).Metonymy is a conceptual
tool that operates within“idealized cognitive models”or“domain matrices”(Lakoff
1987;Croft,1993).In thisview, metonymy is defined as (Radden&Kǒvecses,1999), which has been
presented before.A cognitive process in which one conceptual entity,the vehicle,provides
mentalaccess to another conceptual entity,the target,within the same idealized cognitivemodel.The
cognitive linguistics makes three assumptions about metonymy that is verydifferent from traditional
view:
1.Metonymy is a conceptual phenomenon;
2.Metonymy is a cognitive process;
3.Metonymy operates within the same idealized cognitive model.
In what follows,the author will talk about the three assumptions with examples.They are including a
special case of metonymy what traditional rhetoricians havecalled synecdoche,where the part stands
for the whole,as in the following.
THE PART FOR THE WHOLE
(6)The automobile is clogging our highways.(=the collection of automobiles)
(7)We need a couple of strong bodies for our team.(=strong people)
(8)There are a lot of good heads in the university.(=intelligent people)
(9)I've got a new set of wheels.(=car,motorcycle,etc.)
(10)We need some new blood in the organization.(=new people)
In these cases,as in the other cases of metonymy,one entity is being used to referto another.Metaphor
and metonymy are different kinds of processes.Metaphor isprincipally a way of conceiving of one
thing in terms of another,and its primaryfunction is understood.Metonymy,on the other hand,has
primarily a referentialfunction,that is,it allows using one entity to stand for another.But metonymy is
notmerely a referential device.It also serves the function of providing understanding.Forexample,in
the case of the metonymy THE PART FOR THE WHOLE there are manyparts that can stand for the
whole.Which part can be picked out determines whichaspect of the whole is being focused on.When
one says that he needs some good headson the project,he is using“good heads”to refer to“intelligent
people”.The point is notjust to use a part(head)to stand for a whole(person)but rather to pick out a
particularcharacteristic of the person,namely,intelligence,which is associated with the head.Thesame
is true of other kinds of metonymies.When one says“The Times has not arrivedat the press
conference yet”,he is using“The Times”not merely to refer to somereporter or other but also suggest
the importance of the institution the reporterrepresents.So“The Times has not arrived for the press
conference yet.”meanssomething different from“Steve Roberts has not arrived for the press
conference yet.”, even though Steve Roberts may be the Times’reporter in question.
Thus metonymy serves some of the same purposes that metaphor does,and insomewhat the
International Journal of English Language Education ISSN 2325-0887 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2
www.macrothink.org/ijele 38

same way,but it allows one to focus more specifically on certain aspectsof what is being referred
to.It is also like metaphor in that it is not just a poetic orrhetorical device.Nor is it just a matter of
language.Metonymic concepts(like THEPART FOR THE WHOLE)are part of the ordinary and everyday
way one thinks andacts as well as talks.

REFERENCE
Kǒvecses,Zoltán,&Radden,Günter.(1998). Metonymy: Developing a CognitiveLinguistic
View.Cognitive Linguistics,9(1), 37-77.
Kǒvecses,Zoltán,&Radden,Günter.(1999).Towards a Theory of Metonymy.In Panther,K-U.,&Günter
Radden(eds.), Metonymyin Language and Thought.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.pp.17-
60.International Journal of English Language Education ISSN 2325-0887 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2
www.macrothink.org/ijele 41