Intercultural communication (IC) study has been increasingly emphasized in the field of foreign language research and education in China. However, two problems fail to receive due attention from IC scholars, ie (1) IC researchers have not legitimized speeches by Western leaders in intercultural contexts as objects of IC study; and (2) scholars on discourse analysis have not given adequate attention to the problem of how to analyze such speeches from a critical perspective. Speeches of this type include those delivered by Western leaders when they visit foreign countries or when foreign state leaders visit their countries. Intercultural contexts are defined as situations in which social events (eg speech-making) involving participants (eg speakers and audiences) from different countries take place. Such speeches used to be classified as diplomatic discourse, but now they fall into the category of intercultural discourse. Indeed, speeches like those by Ronald Reagan at Fudan University in 1984 and by Tony Blair at Tsinghua University in 2003 were intended for intercultural communication rather than diplomatic purposes.
Recent studies have taken an approach called “Critical Metaphor Analysis” (CMA) to revealing ideology and political motivations behind metaphors used by Western leaders in intercultural contexts. Over 1,000 speeches were collected and stored in corpora built according to various intercultural contexts and different speakers. For example, W-W corpora contain speeches delivered in West-to-West intercultural contexts, defined as situations where social events take place involving participants from different nations that fall into the category of “developed countries” such as the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc. W-E corpora contain speeches delivered in West-to-East intercultural contexts, defined, more politically and economically than geographically, as situations where social events take place involving participants from different countries, one or some of them belonging to the “developed” category and the other(s) the “developing” category, such as China and Mexico. These corpora are further divided into many sub-corpora titled, for example, “Remarks by Ronald Reagan in W-W intercultural contexts” and “Remarks by Ronald Reagan in W-E intercultural contexts”.
CMA integrates linguistic analysis with cognitive understanding and social insight to explain why a metaphor rather than some alternative mode of expression is chosen in a particular type of discourse. Metaphors present a way of thinking about events that serves speakers’ interests and aims to evoke an emotional response and to use this response as the basis of an evaluation. This discourse function of arousing emotions by using metaphors to influence opinions is very much a focus of recent research on metaphors. Metaphors are used persuasively to convey evaluations and therefore constitute ideology, which involves a systematically organized presentation of reality. Metaphors are vital in creating such a presentation of reality. Ideology exists as a social phenomenon by virtue of being communicated through verbal actions which directly or indirectly justify courses of political action. Thus, the pragmatic potential of metaphors to evoke emotional responses implies that they are just such a form of verbal action. CMA of metaphors in large corpora may reveal the underlying intentions of speech makers and serve to identify the nature of particular ideologies.
CMA of metaphors used by US/UK leaders in W-E intercultural contexts is based on two assumptions: (1) the dominant purpose of such speeches is to propagate Western values; and (2) metaphors reflect the primary discourse function of providing directions of change and development by exploring the potential for a better world. Metaphors are important for achieving the goals of such intercultural discourse for the following reasons. (1) They engage the emotions that are appropriate for the expression of Western values. (2) Because such speeches are also intended to construct the image of speakers, metaphors can help to establish their credentials as persons of high moral integrity, sharing the same hopes and dreams as the audience. (3) Metaphors encourage listeners to infer meanings and have a subliminal role in influencing their views and beliefs.
Research shows that metaphors used in speeches by US/UK leaders in W-E intercultural contexts are drawn primarily from four source domains: plants, building, journey, and conflict. They are closely related to everyday experiences such as movement, sensory experience, belief, interaction with the physical environment and bodily awareness. Metaphors using the lemma flourish are used to imply a strong positive evaluation. They identify those social entities that are highly valued by the speakers. For example, “Let the Brandenburg Gate become a symbol not of two separate and hostile worlds, but an open door through which ideas, free ideas, and peaceful competition flourish.”(Reagan) “Mr. President, we want your economic transformation to succeed, your new democracy to flourish.” (George Bush)
Many building metaphors are found in the corpora, which carry a strong positive connotation because they express aspirations towards desired social goals. They are used to represent a socio-political or economic effort or policy as well-founded, solid, permanent and stable. For example: “I say that we leave confident, more confident than when I came here, that we can, together, build a lasting peace.” (George Bush)
Journey metaphors abound in both W-E and W-W corpora. Journey metaphors have long been studied in cognitive linguistics. A journey is seen as a prototype of purposeful activity involving movement from a starting point to a destination. For example: “We all know that the democratic path is never easy, but it’s a path toward which the peoples of this hemisphere are increasingly turning.”(Reagan)
In the W-E corpora, metaphors from the domain of conflict outnumber those from any other domain. The extensive use of conflict metaphors highlights the personal sacrifice and physical struggle that speaker’s claim are necessary to achieve geo-political and socio-economic goals. Conflict metaphors have a very similar rhetorical pattern: in pragmatic terms the choice of a conflict metaphor determines the nature of the speaker’s evaluation. The conflict is either for abstract social goals that are positively evaluated such as rights, democracy, freedom, etc. or against social phenomena that are negatively evaluated such as social ills and wrong ideas which are conceptualized as “enemies”. For example: “That would truly be a brave battle won in the war against drugs.” (George Bush) “You never stopped believing in freedom and fighting for it.” (Blair)
These metaphors highlight the isomorphic relationships between the domains of politics and war and are used for identifying what is valued and what is rejected and therefore become a heuristic for creating political identity in intercultural discourse.
By Ji Yuhua, Ph.D. Chair and Professor of the Department of English Language & Literature, Xiamen University
