CC BY
15Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
Original Research
The role of the cognitive metaphor in the hybridisation of marketing and political discourses: An analysis of English-language political advertising
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
Ekaterina P. Murashova Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia [email protected] Article history Received February 20, 2021 | Revised May 13, 2021 | June 14, 2021 Conflicts of interest The author declared no conflicts of interest Research funding No funding was reported for this research doi 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
For citation Murashova, E. P. (2021). The role of the cognitive metaphor in the hybridisation of marketing and political discourses: An analysis of English-language political advertising. Training, Language and Culture, 5(2), 22-36.
The present article is devoted to the metaphorical hybridisation of marketing and political discourses. The aim of the paper is to reveal the discursive characteristics shared by marketing and politics through an analysis of the cognitive metaphor as a factor and instrument of their hybridisation. The material of the research is represented by texts of political spots (political TV and Internet commercials) of five different varieties of English published on the official YouTube channels of political figures and organisations between 2007 and 202!, with a total video length of about 7 hours. The texts were transcribed by the author of the paper. The study lies within the scope of cognitive linguistics, linguoprag-matics and sociocultural linguistics. The research methods include those of linguocultural analysis, conceptual analysis, cognitive modelling and quantitative analysis. Hybridisation is viewed in the article as a complex mechanism of knowledge expansion via the resources of marketing and politics which ensures language vitality through a synergistic effect. The most obvious product of the hybridisation of marketing and politics is political advertising discourse. It is argued that political advertising discourse is largely based on the 'Politics as a Commodity' cognitive metaphor which makes explicit the value of choice in most Western European democracies. Having analysed the empirical material, the author determines the discursive characteristics that serve as points of intersection of marketing and politics and facilitate their hybridisation. The main discursive characteristics bringing together marketing and politics are agonality (aptness of competition), theatricality, commodification and personifiedness. Each of them is illustrated with examples of cognitive metaphors pertaining to both marketing and politics. The discursive characteristics revealed manifest the modern tendencies towards marketisation and conversationalisation of media discourse.
KEYWORDS: institutional discourse, hybridisation, marketing discourse, political discourse, political advertising discourse, cognitive metaphor, conceptual integration theory
zT\ I This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits (CC1 VT^ unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, including transformation and building upon the material
for any purpose, provided the original author(s) and source are properly cited (CC BY 4.0)
1. INTRODUCTION
The dynamic changes in modern society find their full expression in the discourse of social institutions. One of the factors of the development of
institutional discourse is the process of hybridisation which is hereinafter understood as creation of a more perfect communicative product through mixing heterogeneous elements of the cognitive
© Ekaterina P. Murashova 2021 This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
and language levels of the speech-thinking activity (Iriskhanova & Ivashko, 2011; Sanchez-Stockham-mer, 2012). The main direction of linguistic study of hybridisation seems to be the analysis of its peculiarities and mechanisms of realisation in different genres of institutional communication, above all, in marketing and politics (Cap & Okulska, 2013; Guseynova, 2011; Mantynen & Shore, 2014). Although the social practices of marketing and politics are undergoing convergence (Egorova-Gantman & Pleshakov, 1999, p. 16), as evidenced by the establishment and successful development of the institution of political advertising, there is still no complete linguistic description of the points of intersection of marketing and political discourses.
The aim of the present research is to reveal those points of intersection of marketing and political discourses that facilitate the process of their hybridisation, including with the help of cognitive, or conceptual, metaphors. The relevance of the study is predetermined by two factors: firstly, the necessity to expand theoretical knowledge of the cognitive mechanisms underlying discourse hybridisation and, secondly, the need to increase the effectiveness of messages created and disseminated by advertising specialists.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The material under analysis is formed of texts of political spots (short political TV or Internet commercials) representing five varieties of the English language (American, British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand), retrieved from the official You-Tube channels of politicians and political organisations between 2007 and 2021. The total duration of the media material is about 7 hours. The texts were transcribed by the author of the present paper. The written component of the spots is indicated in square brackets, the original font size being preserved, while the oral component is given without any brackets.
The material in question was chosen because the political spot is one of the most representative genres of political advertising (Murashova, 2018). Political advertising, in its turn, is explicitly hybrid
in character, bringing together features of marketing and political discourses, which is relevant to achieving the aim of the present paper.
To illustrate the main findings of the research, we have selected texts containing examples of the cognitive metaphor that, in our opinion, can reflect the points of interaction of the discourses.
The research was conducted within the scope of cognitive linguistics, linguopragmatics and so-ciocultural linguistics. Apart from the general scientific methods of analysis (synthesis, generalisation, deduction, induction, and others), we have applied methods typical of modern linguistic research, namely linguocultural analysis, conceptual analysis, and cognitive modelling in line with the conceptual integration theory. The empirical material was analysed with the help of methods of quantitative research.
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1. Hybridisation as a notion of linguistics
3.1.1. Origin and meaning of hybridisation
The term 'hybridisation' was initially borrowed from biology where it is used to denote integration of the genetic material of genotypically heterogeneous organisms (cells) with the aim of breeding a hybrid organism which is characterised by heterozygosity along several genes (Gilyarov, 1986, p. 132). Heterozygosity is a genetic parameter ensuring the variability of a species, i.e. the ability of an organism to acquire genetic properties different from those of its parents. As a rule, the final aim of hybridisation is achieving heterosis - the genetic advantage of the hybrid over the parental forms which enhances the survivability of the species (Gilyarov, 1986, p. 130). The term 'heterozygosity' is similar in meaning to the sociolinguistic term 'language vitality' which is usually understood as the capacity of a language for further development, change or preservation of structural and, which is even more important, functional properties (Mikhalchenko, 2006, p. 37). We believe that just as biological hybridisation aims to ensure the survivability of a biological species, language hybridisation aims to facilitate the vitality of a language.
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
'In the 20th century, the term 'hybridisation' was expanded to denote the process of mixing the properties of any heterogeneous objects and as an organismal metaphor entered the terminology of most humanities disciplines, including linguistics'
In the 20th century, the term 'hybridisation' was expanded to denote the process of mixing the properties of any heterogeneous objects and as an organismal metaphor entered the terminology of most humanities disciplines, including linguistics. The term was first applied to language phenomena by the Russian philosopher and literary theorist Bakhtin (1975) in the context of studying polyphony in a novel. He defines hybridisation as the mixing of two social languages within one utterance, an encounter in the arena of this utterance of two different language consciousnesses, separated by either the epoch or social differentiation (or both) (Bakhtin, 1975, p. 170). The scholar points out that hybridisation is achieved in two forms - the intended conscious hybridisation and the unintended unconscious hybridisation. In a novel, as a rule, two languages get mixed on the author's initiative and as designed by him/her, and, hence, the mixing has the status of a system of literary devices. On the contrary, the status of a literary device cannot be attributed to the mixing that happens naturally and unconsciously during the historical evolution of a language. In Bakhtin's (1975) view, hybridisation results in a language hybrid that comes in two varieties - the intended polyphonic hybrid that can be called the literary image of a language and the unintended mono-phonic hybrid brought to life within an utterance.
Hybridisation as a linguistic phenomenon can take place at different levels of language. Sanchez-Stockhammer (2012) argues that hybridisation can affect different units of language, such as sounds, morphemes, words, collocations, idioms, phrases, sentences, texts, text types and communication
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
(Sanchez-Stockhammer, 2012, p. 135). Iriskhanova and Ivashko (2011) have developed criteria of hybridisation describing its sources, processes, and results, and suggest a detailed classification of types of hybridisation depending on the level of language, actual semiotic characteristics, the degree of formal expression, etc. (Iriskhanova & Ivashko, 2011, p. 62-64).
3.1.2. Hybridisation, interference, convergence, and diffusion: the difference explained
To denote the process of the interaction of discourses leading to the property of heterogeneity apart from the term 'hybridisation' one uses such terms as 'interference' (Shevchenko, 2008), 'convergence' (Baranov & Severskaya, 2016; Saakyan, 2019) and 'diffusion' (Guseynova, 2011).
The term 'interference' as applied to discourse refers to the imposition of the elements of one discourse (the included one) on another discourse (the receiving one) which results in their combination, interaction, and mutual influence (Shevchenko, 2008, p. 3). Interference of discourses is a phenomenon similar to intertextuality, e.g. as understood by Kristeva (2013). The main difference between interference and intertextuality seems to be, above all, the unit of analysis - discourse as opposed to text, which inevitably determines the choice of research methods.
Convergence is essentially the process of discourses coming together and intersecting at some points. The term 'convergence' is widely used in journalism meaning the fusion of different mass media caused by digitalisation of the media sphere, including the integration of analogue and digital technologies (Vartanova, 2000).
The term 'diffusion' primarily foregrounds the character of the interaction of discourses - mutual penetration and the blurring of borders between them (Sun et al., 2021; Sokolova, 2020).
In our opinion, unlike the similar terms, 'hybridisation' is most adequate for the aim of the present research because it accentuates the syner-gistic effect of the interaction of discourses. The process of hybridisation is aimed at improving the language system and creating the effect of 'lan-
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
guage heterosis', the product of language hybridisation being different from its constituent parts and irreducible to them. Therefore, we believe political advertising discourse to be a qualitatively new entity different from political and marketing discourses, whose elements it borrows and adapts.
3.1.3. Hybridisation of discourses
Hybridisation as a continuous process of mutual enrichment of discourse complicates the typology of discourse varieties and obstructs the development of a single taxonomy of discourses. Wodak (1996) dwells on the properties of dynamism and heterogeneity inherent in institutional discourse, approaching it as a continuum of interconnected discourses conflicting with each other in a certain sociocultural context (Wodak, 1996, p. 12). Kibrik (2009, p. 19) believes that to achieve the progress of discourse analysis as a scientific discipline it is necessary to study mixed discourses, because the four main parameters of classification, as suggested by him (the mode, the genre, the functional style and formality) are independent of each other and produce remarkably complex combinations of different opportunities.
The process of the mixing of discourses for all its dynamism is not chaotic. Using the term 'order of discourse' to speak about the varieties of discourse existing in society, Foucault (1996) remarks that not all discourses are equally open and permeable. Social practice imposes certain limitations on the mutual permeability of discourses (Foucault, 1996, p. 69).
Fairclough (1995), one of the founders of the sociolinguistic approach to critical discourse analysis, when characterising modern media discourse, writes about two types of tensions shaping the language of the media: the tension between information and entertainment, and the tension between public and private. Both are indicative of the tendency towards 'marketisation' and 'conver-sationalisation' correspondingly (Fairclough, 1995, p. 10-11). Marketisation is manifested in the growing share of entertainment in the media sphere. Entertainment is largely believed to be more saleable. That is why to withstand competition the
media have to design a large number of their products as entertainment, which reflects the blurring of boundaries between public affairs and entertainment in media discourse. Fairclough (1995) points out that marketisation and conversationali-sation are not only typical of the media but have also come to shape other social spheres like education, healthcare, art, politics and so on, which is of great relevance to our research.
3.2. The cognitive metaphor in political advertising discourse
3.2.1. Modern linguistic approaches to the political cognitive metaphor
The present paper pays considerable attention to the cognitive metaphor for the following reasons. First, developing models of the conceptual metaphor and ways of their realisation in different discourses is a topical research direction of modern cognitive linguistics. Second, due to the 'discursive turn' in linguistics in the 20th century, the role of the metaphor in organising human mental processes was redefined. Third, metaphorisation and hybridisation can be regarded as processes with similar cognitive potential, as they consist in looking for points of intersection between different fields of reality to produce new knowledge.
According to the contemporary theory of metaphor which replaced the traditional theories dating back to the times of Aristotle, the metaphor came to be studied as a way of learning and reasoning about the world, as a display of analogue opportunities of the human mind (Chudinov, 2011, p. 31). Hence, the political metaphor began to be studied as the key to understanding political reality, an instrument for realising, modelling and evaluating political processes, a means of influencing the collective consciousness (Budaev & Chudinov, 2008, p. 4). The political metaphor is studied within an interdisciplinary research direction called political metaphorology which appeared at the intersection of two promising fields of linguistics - metaphorology and political linguistics. In political metaphorology since the beginning of the 21st century against the backdrop of the so-called 'cognitive revolution' (Kubryakova,
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
1996, p. 69), there has been actively developing a new cognitive direction aimed at studying the metaphor in a broad historical, cultural, and social context with the use of the methods of cognitive linguistics (Chudinov, 2020, p. 3).
Contemporary cognitive research into the political metaphor mainly relies on the classical conceptual metaphor theory of Lakoff and Johnson (2003) which defines the essence of metaphorisa-tion as interaction of different knowledge structures like frames and scenarios of two conceptual domains - the 'source domain' and the 'target domain'. The character of the interaction between the two domains is defined in their theory as 'metaphorical mapping' which is understood as structuring of parts or the whole of the target domain in the same way as the source domain. Conceptual metaphors are therefore steady correspondences between the source and the target domains enshrined in the language and cultural tradition of the given community and conforming to its values, e.g. 'Life as a Journey'.
Since the 1990s, an alternative approach to the cognitive metaphor has been developing that is called the conceptual integration theory, or the conceptual blending theory, by Fauconnier and Turner (2002). In the conceptual integration theory, metaphorisation is based not on a single domain mapping but a set of dynamic processes of integration of mental spaces within one mental space called a 'blend'. As an alternative to the two-domain model, in their theory Fauconnier and Turner (2002) suggest a model of four mental spaces in the form of a conceptual integration network consisting of two 'input spaces', a 'generic space' and a 'blended space'. In fact, the process of conceptual integration is a manifestation of hybridisation and the resulting blend is nothing but a hybrid.
The difference in the approaches to modelling the cognitive metaphor within the two theories is explained by the difference in their aims. In the conceptual metaphor theory, a metaphor is studied as a static product of culture and in the conceptual integration theory it is approached as a dynamic product of individual thinking.
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
As observed by the reputable Russian researchers in the field of the political metaphor, Bu-daev and Chudinov (2020, p. 107), in political linguistics Fauconnier and Turner's (2002) model of metaphorisation is less spread than Lakoff and Johnson's (2003) model. This is explained, on the one hand, by the complexity of the quantitative analysis considering the variety of the components of a blend and the dynamism of their interaction and, on the other hand, by the absence of a single methodology of statistical description that can be applied to each case of blending and takes into account the dynamism of metaphor-building.
Regardless of adherence to one of the two popular theories of the cognitive metaphor, the process of metaphorisation in cognitive linguistics is viewed as a process of hybridisation of heterogeneous structures of knowledge leading to a synergistic effect.
Arutyunova (1999, p. 279) remarks that a metaphor is a hybrid trope, a product of hybridisation of equivalence and similarity. Kubryakova (2002, p. 7) thinks that metaphor-production is not reduced to adding components and its point is creation of a new mental unit that is not the same as the sum of its parts.
In conceptual integration theory, the synergistic effect of hybridisation is termed 'emergence' which denotes the ability of a blend to add meaning and create new knowledge (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).
3.2.2. The 'Politics as a Commodity' cognitive metaphor
The discussion of the cognitive metaphor when studying the points of the intersection of marketing and political discourses is relevant, first and foremost, because political advertising, being a product of their hybridisation, emerged as a result of redefining the concept sphere of politics through the concept sphere of marketing.
The term 'concept sphere' was first introduced in Russian science by Likhachev (1993) and is defined by him as a set of a nation's concepts formed by all the potencies of the concepts of native speakers. We believe that the term can be success-
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
fully applied in a linguistic study of marketing and political discourses because it highlights the role of language as a concentrate of national culture and helps to analyse and evaluate its embodiment in the social institutions of marketing and politics (Likhachev, 1993, p. 9).
The result of the metaphorical hybridisation of the concept spheres of marketing and politics is the blend 'Politics as a Commodity' that justifies the opportunity to 'sell' a politician or his/her ideas like a commodity. It is widely believed that the first person to suggest selling a politician in the same way as toothpaste was the American advertising executive Rosser Reeves who is also famous as the originator of the Unique Sales Proposition and the pioneer of TV advertising (Donovan & Scherer, 1998, p. 103). In the 1950s, specially for the presidential election campaign of the 34th US president Dwight D. Eisenhower, Reeves issued a series of TV commercials titled 'Eisenhower Answers America' modelled on TV commercials advertising goods and services. The idea of selling a politician using TV advertising was innovative back then. Reeves's commercials grabbed the electorate's attention and became one of the factors that contributed to the candidate's victory. The success of the new format of political advertising facilitated the emergence and popularisation of the genre of the political spot which, as a rule, is an essential tool of any large-scale election campaign in countries where competition policy is implemented (Murashova, 2018, p. 5). It is quite possible that, in the course of the development political advertising as a practice, the 'Politician as a Commodity' blend that helped Reeves advertise Eisenhower was transposed to any political actor or political product like a political party or a manifesto, hence the 'Politics as a Commodity' metaphor.
3.2.3. Extralinguistic factors of hybridisation of marketing and political discourses
The prerequisite for the mixing of marketing and political discourses, in our opinion, is the fact that they both fall into the category of institutional discourse (the discourse of institutions) as opposed to personal discourse (the discourse of personali-
ties) (Karasik, 2000; Wodak, 1996). As a working definition of institutional discourse we use the one suggested by Karasik (2002, p. 195): institutional discourse is a specialised clichéd variety of human communication, whose parties may not know each other but are supposed to communicate in accordance with the norms of the given society. As most varieties of institutional discourse, marketing and political discourses are mass, mediatised (Klushina, 2014) and ritualised (Chudinov, 2012, p. 56). Moreover, marketing and political discourses are formed and realised under the conditions of tough competition for the customer and for power correspondingly.
4. STUDY AND RESULTS
4.1. The cognitive model of metaphorisation in
political advertising discourse
The process of metaphorical hybridisation in a single conceptual network of the two types of discourse - marketing and political - can be represented as a conceptual integration scheme under the mental space theory developed by Fauconnier and Turner (2002) (Figure 1). We have identified two input spaces - 'marketing' and 'politics' that under the influence of the generic space as a result of the conceptual integration process form the 'Politics as a Commodity' blend. The generic space, as we think, contains the features of institutional discourse typical of both input spaces. Relying on the nine constitutive features of institutional discourse developed by Karasik (1999), we suggest seven features of marketing and political discourses relevant to explaining the emergent structure: the aim, the object, the addresser, the addressee, the instruments, the working space, and the procedure.
As follows from the scheme, the central feature which serves as the basis for the mapping of the input spaces in the blended space is the presence of the right to choose and the opportunity of choice in the context of competition. Choice is to be considered the key value in Western European democracies and as such determines the constitutive features of marketing and political discourses suggested by Karasik (1999) and us. For example,
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
the use of strategies, tactics and means of persuasive communication in political advertising is prompted by the need to win the addressee over and persuade him/her to make a certain choice. Due to competition in marketing and politics it be-
comes urgent to address issues of linguistic manipulation in political advertising and study the strategies and tactics of the two 'modes' of manipulation - cooperation and competition (Malyuga & Tomalin, 2017).
Figure 1. The conceptual integration scheme of the 'Politics as a Commodity' blend
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
4.2. The discursive characteristics facilitating the hybridisation of marketing and politics
The analysis of the empirical material yielded discursive characteristics shared by marketing communication and political communication that facilitate the hybridisation of marketing and politics. The ways of hybridisation are illustrated using cognitive metaphor groups based on the classification of metaphorical models suggested by Chudinov (2001): anthropomorphic (physiological, mor-bial, kinship metaphor, sexual), the metaphor of nature (zoomorphic, phytomorphic), social (criminal, military, theatrical, sports metaphor, game metaphor) and the artefact metaphor (housing metaphor, mechanism metaphor).
4.2.1. Agonality
Marketing and politics share the aim of persuading a mass addressee to adopt a particular behaviour - consumer behaviour (to buy a product or a service) and political behaviour (e.g. to vote for a particular candidate at elections) correspondingly. The aim of marketing and politics is achieved, as has already been said, under the conditions of tough competition and that is why it presupposes a competitive struggle for the addressee's attention.
Sheigal (2000) considers that aptness of competition, or 'agonality', constitutes the basis of the semiotic organisation of political discourse, bringing it closer to sports discourse. The competition that underlies political discourse is that between the party in power and the opposition or between political candidates. In marketing, competition, as a rule, takes place between producers of the same kind of goods and services. Both in politics and marketing, agonality is mainly realised through creation of a positive image of the institutional agent (a representative of the institute) and his/her product and tarnishing the image of the rival and his/her product.
Here are some cognitive metaphors that demonstrate the agonality of political advertising.
1. Morbial metaphors.
Politics is a difficult ascent in a wheelchair. The narrator in the example is Greg Abbott, a candidate in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial election: After
my accident, I had to rebuild my strength. I would roll up an eight-story parking garage, spending hours going up the ramps. With each floor, it got harder and harder, but I wouldn't quit. 'Just one more/ I'd tell myself. 'Just one more.' I see life that way. And it's how I'll govern Texas. To get to the top we must push ourselves to do just one more' (Greg Abbot, 2014).
The rival is a zombie/ill person. The spot represents Joe Biden, a presidential candidate, as a zombie: Here's how you can spot a zombie. Look for someone who has a corpse-like appearance, exhibits aggressive behaviour, craves human flesh, and utters incoherent moans and groans. With your help we can prevent the zombie uprising (Donald J Trump, 2020a).
The country is an ill organism: These hands are working to heal America (CampaignTVAds, 2015a).
2. Zoomorphic metaphors.
The rival is a wild animal (an alligator/turtle/ scorpion, etc.). In the following example it is meaningful that the alligator is the unofficial symbol of the state of Louisiana: I am Rob Maness and here in Louisiana you learn to be tough. One moment of weakness, and the alligators can eat you alive. So, when I get to Washington, I'll stand up to the big spenders. I'll fight to repeal Obamacare. And I'll protect our gun rights. I'm Colonel Rob Maness and I approve this message because Louisiana needs a senator that will stand up to the career politicians and the alligators (The Rob Maness Show, 2014).
The rival is a domesticated animal (a pig/chick-en/sheep/lapdog, etc.): I'm Joni Ernst. I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm. So, when I get to Washington, I'll know how to cut pork. Washington's full of big spenders. Let's make them squeal (Captioning for Everyone, 2014).
3. Phytomorphic metaphors.
The rival is fruit/vegetable. In the excerpt the name Kevin O'Lemon is word play including the name of Kevin Rudd, the 26th Prime Minister of Australia: The faceless men are desperate again, and it looks like Kevin O'Lemon is coming back. Or will Julia survive? Maybe they'll try someone
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
new. It doesn't matter who they give you. Because they're all Labor lemons and Labor lemons never change their spots (Liberal Party of Australia, 2013).
The government is a swamp: Did you know Washington is built on a swamp? Massive government debt. Stifling regulation. Special interest politics. Partisan dysfunction. Now it all makes sense. Washington is broken. The political class broke it. Together we can drain the swamp and protect our children's future (CampaignTVAds, 2015b).
4. Military metaphors.
The political struggle is war: Mitt Romney's negative attack machine is back on full throttle. This time Romney's firing his mud at Rick Santorum. Romney and his Super PAC have spent a staggering 20 million brutally attacking fellow Republicans. Why? Because Romney's trying to hide from his big government Romneycare, and his support for job-killing cap and trade. And in the end Mitt Romney's ugly attacks are going to backfire (Rick Santorum, 2012).
The rival's rise to power is a military invasion. In this example there is word play involving the name of Alex Salmond, who is addressed as the head of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the spot: Salmond Alert. With fifty SNP seats predicted in the next Parliament, Miliband and then the country would be in their grip. To combat this, emergency polling stations are being set up Thursday. Vote Conservative (Conservatives, 2015).
The rival is an autocrat. In a democracy the 'Rival Is an Autocrat' metaphor reflects the conflict between the politician and the people in case the former is considered to be striving to gain unlimited power. When this metaphor is applied to a political rival, he/she is represented as a monarch wearing the attributes of power like a crown. In the given example Robert J. Bentley, a candidate in the 2014 Alabama gubernatorial election, is represented like this: Emperor Bentley has no clothes (Parker Griffith, 2014).
5. Sports and game metaphors.
The election race is a running race. The following example contains a combination of a metaphor and a pun, showing Mike McFadden, a
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
candidate for the 2014 US Senate election in Minnesota, as both a skilful youth football coach and a promising politician: Now Coach McFadden's the one running (Mike McFadden, 2014).
The election race is a job interview. The politician being discussed in the spot is Justin Trudeau, a candidate for the 42nd Canadian general election:
- Oh, some interesting resumes we have here. Let's talk about Justin.
- I see he's included his picture. Let's start with the experience section. Nothing about balancing a budget or making a payroll.
- Didn't he say budgets balance themselves?
- And what does the experience section say about keeping us safe?
- Well, he wants to send winter jackets to Syria.
- People, being Prime Minister is not an entry-level job.
- I'm not saying no forever, but not now.
- Nice hair though.
Justin Trudeau. He's just not ready (Conservateur, 2015).
6. The mechanism metaphor.
The rival is a weathervane. The mechanism metaphor is mainly verbalised in political advertising through the juxtaposition of statements. In the Canadian spot 'Same weak leadership. Same old NDP' of 2016 the metaphor is expressed both verbally with the help of contradictory statements and visually as John Horgan, head of the British Columbia New Democratic Party, is represented as a weathervane pointing left and right at juxtaposed written remarks: For: 'I think it's appropriate that Kinder Morgan be allowed'. Against: 'I'm very pleased we're saying no to Kinder Morgan' (BCLib-erals, 2016).
4.2.2. Theatricality
Theatricality as a feature of social discourse is accounted for in Bakhtin's (1990) theory of carnival. The point of the theory is that culture is subjected to an inversion of binary oppositions. A new alternative world is built with the help of laughter and gets filled with ambivalent cultural meanings and images (up - down, serious - funny, decent -
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
indecent, etc.). Carnivalisation of culture enables critical analysis of the existing official culture and can lead to a shift in values and trigger a fight against wide-spread misconceptions. One of the manifestations of the carnivalisation of culture is the tendency towards putting on a show and the theatricalisation of politics. The three processes can be represented as reassessing social stereotypes by means of entertainment - the show, the theatre or the circus (Bakhtin, 1990; Fairclough, 1995).
Theatricality is realised with the help of the following metaphors.
1. Theatrical metaphors.
The rival is a puppet: Joe Biden: China's puppet (Donald J Trump, 2020b).
The rival is a circus artist: [Clowning around] Male voiceover: With unemployment at 9% what's [Silly Liberal Doug Berger] Doug Berger doing? Ignoring the real problems, he wasted time on silly stuff like regulating grocery bags. Regulating barber poles, banning grocery bags. Doug Berger: silliness, not substance (ChadBarefoot, 2012).
The rival is a celebrity. In the example, the leadership qualities of Barack Obama, a candidate in the 2008 US presidential election, are questioned: He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But is he ready to lead? (John McCain, 2008a).
2. Religious metaphors.
The rival is a messiah. Just like in the previous example, Barack Obama is meant: And he has anointed himself ready to carry the burden of The One. To quote Barack: 'I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions' (John McCain, 2008b).
4.2.3. Commodification
The phenomena and events of political life in political advertising are often conceptualised in terms of marketing. For example, the concepts 'politician', 'politics' and 'political product' (a manifesto, a movement, an idea or a symbol) undergo metaphorical redefinition and get closer to the concept of 'commodity'. From the psychological point of view, commodification of metaphors is explained by a human's desire to learn more about
abstract spheres with the help of the structures of bodily experience that are already familiar to him/ her. Therefore, the understanding of politics as a commodity is based on the same psychological mechanisms as the 'bodily metaphor' in the theory of Lakoff and Johnson (2003). The commodification of political advertising is expressed with the help of the following metaphors.
1. Food metaphors.
The budget is tasty food (e.g. a biscuit) or a visit to a restaurant: When Rodney Davis got to Washington he ordered Congress every perk on the menu. Rodney Davis - only serving himself (DCC-CVideo, 2014a).
A politician or their target audience is food/drink. In the spot promoting Linda McMahon, a candidate for the 2010 US Senate election in Connecticut, the jobless are likened to lunch boxes, which must be both, a metaphor, and a metonymy: A lot of people ask me why I'm running for Senate. Here's why: this lunch box. It represents a lot of people who've lost jobs. <...> I'm Linda McMahon, and I approve this message because we need this lunch box and a lot more like it back at work (LindaMcMahon2010, 2010).
2. Economic metaphors.
Economy is a cargo: America's economy is hanging by a thread. Under the weight of high unemployment, soaring gas prices, Medicare nearly bankrupt, reckless spending, a failed stimulus, and a $14 trillion-dollar debt, much of it owned by China, we are near the breaking point. Maybe we won't be crushed when our economy snaps, but someone will (CrossroadsGPSChannel, 2011).
A debt crisis is a hole: When you're in a hole, you stop digging. But Mark Begich? He keeps digging deeper in the wrong direction. Begich voted four times to help Obama pile up record debts. Mark Begich: digging Alaska a hole we can't afford (NRSC, 2014).
4.2.4. Personifiedness
Nowadays the boundaries between institutional and personal discourses are getting blurred, which is explained by the commitment of institutions to the task of seeking ways to influence the addressee
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
more effectively. To win the addressee over one is to become closer to him/her using different means, including conversationalisation. Conversational speech helps to make the relationships between the participants more intimate and establish a steady communicative contact between them. Per-sonifiedness is associated with the following metaphors.
1. Kinship metaphors.
The rival is a child: When Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick doesn't get her way, she throws tantrums. During the government shutdown we needed Kirkpatrick to fight for Arizona. Instead, she threw a tantrum and voted against funding for border security and against opening the Grand Canyon. Ann Kirkpatrick. Tantrums in Congress that hurt Arizona (American Action Network, 2014).
2. Housing metaphors.
The rival is darkness/ignorance: Education leads to a bright future. But Cresent Hardy would turn out the lights on our schools. Cresent Hardy's ideas on education would leave Nevada students in the dark (DCCCVideo, 2014b).
The points of the electoral manifesto are presents. In the following example tags with the names of the manifesto points are attached to Christmas presents: [Universal health care. Alternative energy. Bring troops home. Middle class tax breaks]. Hillary Clinton: Where did I put universal pre-K? Ah, here it is. [Universal Pre-K. Happy holidays] (Sincerely Right, 2015).
The rival is baggage/garbage. In the example the allegedly unsuccessful points of the Australian Labour Party's manifesto are represented as inscriptions on bags filled with garbage: Voiceover (male): Bill Shorten is not a leader. He's got too much baggage from his six disastrous years with Rudd and Gillard. Too much baggage from knifing two sitting prime ministers. [Boats. Waste. Carbon tax. Unions. Debt. Chaos]. Bill Shorten and Labour have got too much baggage (Liberal Party of Australia, 2015).
Certainly, the number of cognitive metaphors used in political advertising discourse is not limited to the above-mentioned ones.
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
5. DISCUSSION
In political advertising the cognitive metaphor is treated as a tool for raising the efficiency of the message and, thus, outrivalling competitors in the struggle for the addressee's attention and trust. The individualised and creative character of the cognitive metaphor provides for an almost unlimited number of options of metaphorical hybridisation.
Though metaphorical hybridisation seems to be productive and highly demanded in political advertising, the quantitative analysis of the empirical material shows that the number of spots in which the cognitive metaphor is used is relatively small and only amounts to 15%. In most cases the addresser tries to make the most of the cognitive potential of the metaphor and, hence, mainly uses sustained metaphors accompanied by other cognitive devices like the metonymy or the pun. The cognitive metaphor seems to be the most widely used cognitive mechanism, with others like the metonymy or the pun used separately amounting to only 5% (Figure 2).
The limited use of the cognitive metaphor can be explained by three interrelated factors. First, the cognitive metaphor most often relies on immense background knowledge of economy, politics, culture, etc. So, when using the cognitive metaphor, the addresser has to consider the psychological and physiological mechanisms and motives underlying perception and interpretation. Second, the decoding of the cognitive metaphor is not always predictable and can be individually coloured, so there is always a chance of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, which is certainly highly undesirable for the advertiser. Third, it takes more technical resources, more time, and more money to realise the metaphor in certain genres of political advertising, especially those that presuppose the use of TV and the Internet. The dilemma is, as a rule, overcome with the help of the use of familiar cognitive metaphors, e.g. the 'Politician Is a Puppet'.
As was shown in the examples above, the metaphor mainly serves as a tool of defaming the political rival, which is in line with the general tendency towards negativity in political advertising (Murashova, 2018, p. 154-155). The advertiser
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
■ Spots containing at least one cognitive metaphor
■ Spots containing cognitive devices other than cognitive metaphors
■ Spots containing no cognitive devices
Figure 2. The use of cognitive metaphors in political spots
tries to make use of all the modes of perception to influence the addressee and, therefore, the linguistic metaphor is most often backed by visual and/or audial means. Yet, we have not detected any instances of the use of visual or audial metaphors only without the participation of language, which goes to show the importance of the linguistic metaphor as a tool of persuasion in political advertising.
A promising continuation of the current research would be further quantitative analysis of different models of cognitive metaphors in political advertising and comparison of their functions and role in the process of hybridisation of marketing and political discourses.
6. CONCLUSION
Hybridisation in all its forms and manifestations, including metaphorical hybridisation, is a productive process of enriching language and ensuring its vitality. Following an analysis of the peculiarities of the hybridisation of marketing and political discourses based on the cognitive metaphor, several conclusions can be drawn.
First, the most obvious product of the hybridisation of marketing and political discourse is political advertising discourse. Political advertising can be seen as a result of the metaphorical redefinition
of politics through marketing terms. The central cognitive metaphor structuring the concept sphere of political advertising is the 'Politics as a Commodity' metaphor. Among the factors facilitating metaphorical hybridisation of the two varieties of discourse are, on the one hand, their institutionali-ty and, on the other hand, the acknowledgement of the primacy of choice as a basic democratic value of the Western European culture.
Second, having analysed texts of political advertising, we have revealed a number of discursive characteristics that could be considered points of intersection of marketing and politics in the course of their hybridisation: agonality, theatricality, commodification and personifiedness. These discursive characteristics are determined and shaped by two types of conflicts leading to the marketisation and conversationalisation of political advertising - the one between information and entertainment and the other between public and private.
Third, the discursive characteristics of political advertising can be illustrated with the help of those cognitive metaphors that are most typical of the variety of discourse under discussion. Due to the general tendency towards negativity in political advertising, the cognitive metaphor usually has a negative connotation and aims to tarnish the political rival's image.
Training, Language and Culture Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
References
American Action Network. (2014, October 20). Tantrums [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ 34A0CBh12ZY Arutyunova, N. D. (1999). Language and the human's
world. Yazyki Russkoi Kultury. Bakhtin, M. M. (1975). Issues of literature and aesthetics. Studies of different years. Khudozhest-vennaya Literatura. Bakthin, M. M. (1990). François Rabelais's creativity and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (2nd ed.). Khudozhestvennaya Literatura.
Baranov, A. N., & Severskaya, O. I. (2016). Poetic practices in modern political discourse. Social Sciences and Modernity, 4, 159-170. BCLiberals. (2016, December 3). Same weak leadership. Same old NDP [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/dHPi2wFlUDs Budaev, E. V., & Chudinov, A. P. (2008). Foreign political
metaphorology. USPU Press. Budaev, E. V., & Chudinov, A. P. (2020). Modern Russian political metaphorology (2011-2020). Philological Class, 25(2), 103-113. https://doi.org/ 10.26170/FK20-02-09 CampaignTVAds. (2015a, December 10). Ben Carson 2016 - 'These hands' [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/pmCx6A9_sdE CampaignTVAds. (2015b, October 25). Ben Carson 2016 - 'Drain the swamp' [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/Qw7KHz5jUp8 Cap, P., & Okulska, U. (Eds.). (2013). Analyzing genres in political communication: Theory and practice. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Captioning for Everyone. (2014, October 1). Joni Ernst 'Squeal' political ad closed captioned [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/zc8uLuHsNw0 ChadBarefoot. (2012, September 12). Chad Barefoot for State Senate [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ eGhsaG2xq54 Chudinov, A. P. (2001). Russia in the metaphorical mirror: A cognitive study of the political metaphor (1991- 2000). USPU Press. Chudinov, A. P. (Ed.). (2011). Modern political linguistics. USPU Press. Chudinov, A. P. (2012). Discursive characteristics of political communication. Political Linguistics, 2(40), 53-59.
More than Meets the Eye: A Closer Look at Professional Discourse doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
Chudinov, A. P. (2020). Political metaphorology: A
discursive turn. Flinta. Conservateur. (2015, May 25). The interview [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/c86-9HitWg0 Conservatives. (2015, May 4). Salmond alert [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/hUIem0_u0m4 CrossroadsGPSChannel. (2011, July 26). Crossroads GPS 'Thread' [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ _AfapwN4RlI
DCCCVideo. (2014a, October 4). Ordered up [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/_pH0nLxth_Q DCCCVideo. (2014b, October 29). In the dark [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/IbwzOQWxbfw Donald J Trump. (2020a, October 27). Prevent a zombie uprising [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/QCiyHRUfvKc Donald J Trump. (2020b, May 12). Joe Biden: China's puppet [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ DMo157A43-E Donovan, R. J., & Scherer, R. (1998). Politics transformed. In D. Gomery (Ed.), Media in America: The Wilson quarterly reader (pp. 99-113). Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Egorova-Gantman, E. V., & Pleshakov, K. V. (1999).
Political advertising. Nikkolo M. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books. Foucault, M. (1996). The order of discourse. In A. Puzyrey (Ed.), Will for the truth: On the other side of knowledge, power and sexuality (pp. 47-96). Kastal. Gilyarov, M. S. (Ed.). (1986). The biological encyclopaedic dictionary. Sovetskaya Encyclopedia. Greg Abbot. (2014, September 2). Garage [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/pAuKRyQgvgU Guseynova, I. A. (2011). Scenarios and strategies of genre hybridisation in institutional discourse. In I. I. Khaleeva (Ed.), Language creativity in the dynamics of semiotic interactions (pp. 162-197). Moscow State Linguistic University Press. Iriskhanova, O. K., & Ivashko, E. A. (2011). The processes of hybridisation in language. In I. I. Khaleeva (Ed.), Language creativity in the dynamics of semiotic interactions (pp. 57-74). Moscow State Linguistic University Press.
by Ekaterina P. Murashova
John McCain. (2008a, July 30). Celeb [Video]. YouTube.
https://youtu.be/oHXYsw_ZDXg John McCain. (2008b, August 1). The one [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/mopkn0lPzM8 Karasik, V. I. (1999). Religious discourse. In V. I. Karasik (Ed.), Language identity: Problems of linguistic culturology and functional semantics (pp. 5-19). Peremena. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp? id=44217582
Karasik, V. I. (2000). About types of discourse. In V. I. Karasik & G. G. Slyshkin (Eds.), Language identity: Institutional and personal discourse (pp. 5-19). Peremena. https://www.elibrary.ru/item. asp?id=25969307 Karasik, V. I. (2002). Language circle: Personality, concepts, discourse. Peremena. https://www.elibrary. ru/item.asp?id=24065092 Kibrik, A. A. (2009). Mode, genre, and other parameters of discourse classification. Topics in the Study of Language, 2, 3-21. https://www.elibrary.ru/item. asp?id=11897859 Klushina, N. I. (2014). Mediatisation of modern culture and the Russian national style. Russian Speech, 1, 66-73. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21 281574
Kristeva, J. (2013). Semiotics: Studies in seme analysis. Akademicheskij Proekt. https://search.rsl.ru/ru/ record/01006691731 Kubryakova, E. S. (Ed.). (1996). A concise dictionary of cognitive terms. Moscow State University Press. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18828409 Kubryakova, E. S. (2002). Compositional semantics: Aims and tasks. In N. N. Boldyrev (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International School-Seminar in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 4-6). Tambov State University Press. https://www.elibrary. ru/item.asp?id=22687442&selid=29341140 Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by.
University of Chicago Press. Liberal Party of Australia. (2013, March 20). Lemon -Déjà vu [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ BzjI31DCD4o Liberal Party of Australia. (2015, May 12). Bill Shorten -all politics, no policy [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/dj5v1gvnUj8 Likhachev, D. S. (1993). The concept sphere of the Russian language. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Literature and Language, 52(1), 3-9.
LindaMcMahon2010. (2010, September 11). Lunch box (Linda McMahon TV ad) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/L8-M_UL54Tg Malyuga, E. N., & Tomalin, B. (2017). Communicative strategies and tactics of speech manipulation in intercultural business discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 1(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/ 10.29366/2017tlc.1.1.2 Mantynen, A., & Shore, S. (2014). What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies. Text & Talk, 34(6), 737-758. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0022 Mike McFadden. (2014, July 7). Coach [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/mgUb98_v3VE Mikhalchenko, V. Yu. (Ed.). (2006). A dictionary of sociolinguistic terms. Russian Academy of Sciences.
Murashova, E. P. (2018). The political spot as a genre of political advertising: An analysis of English-language material [Doctoral dissertation, Moscow State Linguistic University]. Russian State Library. https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01008705 152
NRSC. (2014, October 15). Hole [Video]. YouTube.
https://youtu.be/66ENKYCHSgo Parker Griffith. (2014, May 24). Bentley got the blues [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/SwzZ98cylvw Rick Santorum. (2012, February 15). Rombo [Video].
YouTube. https://youtu.be/OtOcrS6axnE Saakyan, L. N. (2019). Convergence of political and advertising discourses. The Russian Language Abroad, 4(275), 46-50. https://www.elibrary.ru/ item.asp?id=39470219 Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (2012). Hybridization in Language. In P. W. Stockhammer (Ed.), Conceptualizing cultural hybridization: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 133-157). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-21846-0_9 Sheigal, E. I. (2000). The semiotics of political discourse [Doctoral dissertation, Volgograd State Pedagogical University]. Russian State Library. https:// search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01000271908 Shevchenko, V. D. (2008). An introduction to the theory of discourse interference. Samara State Transport University Press. https://www.elibrary.ru/item. asp?id=37136977 Sincerely Right. (2015, April 9). Hillary Clinton 'Presents' ad [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ Jj-_cbJrCV4
Training, Language and Culture Volume 5 Issue 2, 2021, pp. 22-36
Sokolova, N. V. (2020). Multimodal IT marketing discourse: An integrated approach investigation. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 366-385. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-366-385
Sun, Y., Kalinin, O. I., & Ignatenko, A. V. (2021). The use of metaphor power indices for the analysis of speech impact in political public speeches. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 250-277. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1 -250-277
More than Meets the Eye: A Closer Look at Professional Discourse doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36
The Rob Maness Show. (2014, May 8). Rob Maness TV ad - Gator [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ aBNQBx6JOcw Vartanova, E. L. (2000). Convergence as inevitability: About the role of the technological factor in the transformation of the modern media systems. In Y. N. Zasurskiy & E. L. Vartanova (Eds.), From the book to the Internet: Journalism and literature at the turn of the new millennium (pp. 37-55). Moscow State University Press. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. Longman.
EKATERINA P. MURASHOVA
Moscow State Linguistic University | 38 Ostozhenka Street, bld. 1, 119034 Moscow, Russia
