美国经济类政治语篇的隐喻架构分析——以2012年奥巴马和罗姆尼的总统竞选辩论为例被引量：11

A Metaphorical Framing Analysis of American Political Discourse on Economic Issues-With Reference to US Presidential Election Debates between Obama and Romney in 2012

原文传递

导出

摘要文章以概念隐喻理论、架构理论和美国两党道德模式为框架,选取2012年美国首场总统竞选辩论中奥巴马和罗姆尼有关经济议题的辩论文本为语料,考察了其中的概念隐喻并对比分析了同一概念隐喻背后不同的架构。研究表明:奥巴马和罗姆尼均使用"发展经济是旅程"和"国家预算是家庭预算"的概念隐喻来建构美国经济现实,表述各自经济政策,合法化自身和非法化对手以达到劝说美国民众的目的;"旅程"隐喻中奥巴马的国家支持教育和培训架构、增税架构源于"慈父"模式及"关爱、责任"等核心价值观,罗姆尼的个人自谋出路获取培训架构、减税架构受"严父"模式、奖惩道德和"自律、独立"价值观的影响。 Based on the scripts of the debates on economic issues in the first US presidential election debates between Obama and Romney in 2012,this article explores,within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory,Framing theory and the morality models of the American Republican Party and Democratic Party,the conceptual metaphors in the debates and makes a contrastive analysis of the underlying frames in the same conceptual metaphors. It is found that both Obama and Romney employ DEVELOPING ECONOMY IS A JOURNEY and NATIOANL BUDGET IS FAMILY BUDGET metaphors to construct the economic reality in America,present their policies,legitimize themselves and delegitimize their opponents for the purpose of persuading the public. While Obama's frames of supporting education and training nationally and increasing tax derive from the Nurturant Parent Model and its core values of'affection'and'responsibility',Romney's frames of creating individual pathways to get training and decreasing tax originate from the Strict Father Model,Morality of Reward and Punishment and the values of 'self- discipline'and 'independence'.

作者袁红梅汪少华

机构地区南京信息工程大学语言文化学院南京师范大学外国语学院

出处《外国语言文学》 2016年第1期8-19,72,共12页 Foreign Language and Literature Studies

基金教育部人文社科研究一般项目"基于语料库的当代美国政治语篇的架构隐喻模式分析"(项目批准号:11YJA740085)阶段性成果

关键词经济辩论概念隐喻架构

分类号 H315 [语言文字—英语]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献23

1Boyd,Michael S. Refiraming the American Dream-Conceptual Metaphor and Personal Pronouns inthe 2008 US Presidential Debates [ A ]. In PiotrCap, Urszula Okulska ( eds. ) Analyzing Genres inPolitical Communication-Discourse Approachesto Politics , Society and Culture [ C ]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2013(50) : 297 -320.
2Charteris - Black, J. Corpus Approaches to CriticalMetaphor Analysis [ M ]. Basingstoke : Palgrave 一Macmillan, 2004.
3Chilton’ P. Analyzing Political Discourse [ M ].London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
4Cienki, A. Bush’s and Gore . s language and ges-tures in the 2000 US presidential debates : A testcase for two models of metaphors [ J ]. Journal ofLanguage and Politics,2004(3) : 409 - 440.
5Cienki, A. Metaphor in the u Strict Father” and“ Nurturant Parent” cognitive models : Theoretical is-sues raised in an empirical study [ J ]. CognitiveLinguistics,2005a, 16(2) : 279 -312.
6Cienki, A. The metaphorical use of family termsversus other nouns in political debates [ J] Informa-tion Design Journal + Document Design , 2005b,13: 27-39.
7Fillmore, C. Frames and the Semantics of Under-standing [J]. Quademi di Semantica,1985 (6):222 - 254.
8Fillmore, C. & B. Atkins. Towards a frame - basedlexicon ; The Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors[A]. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (eds. ). Frames ,Fields , and Contrast : New Essays in Semantics andLexical Organization [ C ] . Hillsdale : Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, 1992 , 75 -102.
9Goffman E. Frame Analysis : An Essay on the Or-ganization of Experience [ M]. New York: Harper &Row, 1974.
10Hart, C. Critical discourse analysis and metaphor:toward a theoretical framework [ J ] . Critical Dis-course Studies,2008, 5(2): 91 -106.

二级参考文献53

1齐振海,覃修贵.“心”隐喻词语的范畴化研究[J].外语研究,2004,21(6):24-28. 被引量：37
2Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor A- nalysis [ M ]. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
3Fairclough,N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis:The Critical Study of Language [ M ]. London : Longman.
4Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power [ M]. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
5Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embod-led Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M ]. New York Basic Books.
6Lakoff, G. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think[ M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7Lakoff, G. 2004. Don' t Think of an Elephant ! Know your Values and Frame the Debate [ M]. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.
8Lakoff, G. 2008. The Political Mind: Why You Can' t Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain[ M]. New York: Viking.
9van Dijk, T. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach [ M]. London : Sage.
10van Dijk, T. 2008. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Ap- proach [ M ]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.