La métaphore comme ressource cognitive, sociale et idéologique dans le discours parlementaire de l’ultrapériphérie européenne
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2024.i32.08Info
Auteurs
- Marina Díaz-Peralta (ES) Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3007-2737
- Gracia Piñero Piñero (ES) Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4989-3319
Résumé
Depuis l’approche théorique de l’analyse critique du discours et de la linguistique cognitive, nous présentons une analyse de la représentation mentale figurée de l’Europe construite par les représentants politiques d’une région ultrapériphérique européenne, en utilisant des métaphores conceptuelles. Dans un corpus constitué des discours exposés lors des sessions du Parlement des Canaries par les différentes forces politiques depuis le début de la première législature jusqu’à aujourd’hui, nous avons identifié, à l’aide d’une méthodologie ascendante et à partir de métaphores linguistiques, les métaphores conceptuelles avec lesquelles l’idée de l’Europe est catégorisée, nous avons déterminé les domaines source sur lesquels cette idée est projetée et nous avons examiné la composante émotionnelle et évaluative qui est à la base de ces domaines. L’analyse révèle la présence d’une série de projections conceptuelles très répandues dans le discours politique, motivées par l’expérience humaine, dotées d’un grand potentiel de persuasion et qui identifient l’Europe à un conteneur, une route, un navire, une source d’approvisionnement ou une personne.
Mots-clés
Téléchargements
Comment citer
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Marina Díaz-Peralta, Gracia Piñero Piñero 2024
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Références
BENNETT, S. (2021): “Mythopoetic legitimation and the recontextualisation of Europe’s foundational myth”, Journal of Language and Politics, 21(2), pp. 370-389. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.21070.ben
BURGOON, M. y MILLER, G. (1971): “Prior attitude and language intensity as predictions of message style and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, pp. 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11407167
BURGOON, M. y BETTINGHAUS, E.P (1980): “Persuasive message strategies”, Persuasion: New directions in theory and research, 8, pp. 141-169.
CAMERON, L. et al. (2009): “The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis”, Metaphor and Symbol, 24 (2), pp. 63-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821
CAMERON, L. y MASLEN, R. (2010): “Identifying metaphors in discourse data”, Cameron, L. y Maslen, R. (eds.), Metaphor Analysis. Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, London: Equinox, pp. 97-115.
CHAIKEN, S. y STANGOR, C. (1987): “Attitudes and attitude changes”, Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), pp. 575-630.
CHARAUDEAU, P. (2011): “Las emociones como efectos de discurso”, Versión, 26, pp. 97-118. Disponible en: https://versionojs.xoc.uam.mx/index.php/version/article/download/405/404
CHARTERIS-BLACK, J. (2004): Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
CHARTERIS-BLACK, J. (2005): “Persuasion, legitimacy and leadership”, Charteris-Black, J. (ed.), Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor, Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-31.
CHILTON, P. (1996): Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House, New York: Peter Lang.
CHILTON, P. (2004): Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice, London/New York: Routledge.
CHILTON, P. (2005): “Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct”, Wodak, R, y Chilton, P. (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19-51.
CARRERAS-RUIDAVETS, F., HERNÁNDEZ-FIGUEROA, Z. y RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, G. (2023): DiSeCan-Buscador en el Diario de Sesiones del Parlamento de Canarias. Disponible en: https://dise.iatext.ulpgc.es/canarias/
CRAWFORD, L.E. (2014): “The role of conceptual metaphor in memory”, Landau, M.J., Robinson, M.D. y Meier, B.P. (eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life, American Psychological Association, pp. 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/14278-00465-83
CROFT, W. y CRUSE, D.A. (2004): Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DÍAZ-PERALTA, M. (2016): “Metáforas de la estructura del evento en el discurso político español. Franquismo y nacionalcatolicismo cuarenta años después de la Transición”, Hernández-Bayter, H., Pineira-Tresmontant, C. y Vigneron, D. (dirs.), La transition espagnole, 40 ans après, Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 29-46.
DÍAZ-PERALTA, M. (2018): “Metaphor and ideology: Conceptual structure and conceptual content in Spanish political discourse”, Discourse & Communication, 12(2), pp. 128-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317745752
DÍAZ-PERALTA, M. (2021): “Cognitive grammar and representation of the feminine world in the Spanish political discourse of the late 19th century”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 98 (6), pp. 531-547. https://doi.org/10.3828/bhs.2021.30
DIRVEN, R., WOLF, H.G. y POLZENHAGEN, F. (2007): “Cognitive Linguistics and Cultural Studies”, Geeraerts, D. y Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1203-1221.
EDELMAN, M. (1971): Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescence, Chicago: Markham.
FILLMORE, C. (1982): “Frame semantics”, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111-137. Disponible en: http://brenocon.com/Fillmore%201982_2up.pdf
FILLMORE, C. (1985): “Frames and the semantics of understanding”, Quaderni di Semantica, 6, pp. 222-254. Disponible en: http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/ai/framesand85.pdf
GARDE ERANSUS, E. (2022): “Marcos de interpretación metafóricos en el discurso de Pablo Iglesias sobre Cataluña: un corpus de entrevistas radiofónicas”, Pragmalingüística, 30, pp. 163-182. https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2022.i30.07
GIBBS, R.W. y SIMAN, J. (2021): “How We Resist Metaphors”, Language and Cognition, 13(4), pp. 670-692. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.18
HART, Ch. (2011): “Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration”, Discourse Studies, 13(6), pp. 751-769.
HART, Ch. (2021): “Animals vs. Armies: Resistance to Extreme Metaphors in Anti-Immigration Discourse”, Journal of Language and Politics, 20(2), pp. 226-253.
ILIE, C. (2006): “Parliamentary Discourse”. Brown, K. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 9, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 188-197.
ILIE, C. (2010): “Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices”, Ilie, C. (ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 57-78.
ÍÑIGO MORA, I.M. (2010): “Rhetorical Strategies in the British and Spanish Parliaments”, Ilie, C. (ed.), European Parliaments Under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 329-372.
JOHNSON, M. (1987): The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason, Chicago: University Press.
KOLLER, V. (2005): “Critical Discourse Analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse”, Discourse & Society, 16(2), pp. 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621
KÖVECSES, Z. (2005): Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KÖVECSES, Z. (2017): “Nation building through metaphor”. Digonnet, R. ed.), Inhibiting language, constructing language – Habiter la langue, construire la langue. Bruxelles: Peter Lang, pp. 37-48.
LAKOFF, G. (1987): Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
LAKOFF, G. (1993): “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: University Press, pp. 202-251.
LAKOFF, G, (2002): Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
LAKOFF, G. (2008): The Political Mind. Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, New York: Penguin.
LAKOFF, G. y JOHNSON, M. (1980): Metaphors We Live By, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
LAKOFF, G. y TURNER, M. (1989): More than Cool Reason. Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
LANDAU, M.J., MEIER, B.P. y KEEFER, L.A. (2010.): “A Metaphor-Enriched Social Cognition”, Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), pp. 1045-1067. Disponible en: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0020970
LIPPMANN, W. (1922): Public Opinion, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
MARTIN, J.R. y WHITE, P. R. (2005): The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English, London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
MARTÍN ROJO, L. (2000): “Enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamentarios sobre la política de inmigración en España”, Oralia, 3, pp. 113-148.
MARTÍN ROJO, L. y VAN DIJK, T.A. (1998): “Había un problema y se ha solucionado: legitimación de la expulsión de inmigrantes ‘ilegales’ en el discurso parlamentario español”, Martín Rojo, L. y Whittaker, R. (coords.), Poder decir o el poder de los discursos, Madrid: Arrecife, pp. 169-223.
MIO, J. S. (1997): “Metaphor and politics”, Metaphor and Symbol, 12, pp. 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2
MUSOLFF, A. (2004): Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
MUSOLFF, A. (2016): Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios, London: Bloomsbury.
NACEY, S. et al. (2019): “MIPVU in multiple languages”, Nacey, S., Dorst, A. G., Krennmayr, T. y Reijnierse, W. G. (eds.), Metaphor identification in multiple languages: MIPVU around the world, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-21.
NÚÑEZ CABEZAS, E. A. y GUERRERO SALAZAR, S. (2002): El lenguaje político español, Madrid: Cátedra.
ORTONY, A. (1975): “Why Metaphors Are Necessary and Not Just Nice”, Educational Theory, 25(1), pp. 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x
PALMER, G. B. (1996): Toward a theory of cultural linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press.
PEÑA CERVEL, S. (2008): “Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language”, Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), pp. 1041-1066.
PEÑA CERVEL, S. (2012): “Los esquemas de imagen”, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. y Valenzuela Manzanares, J. (coords.) Lingüística cognitiva, Barcelona: Anthropos, pp. 69-98.
PETTY, R.E. y CACIOPPO, J.T. (1986): Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, New York: Springer-Verlag.
REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA Y ASALE (2010): Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa
REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA y ASALE (2024): Diccionario de la lengua española. <https://dle.rae.es/>
REARDON, K.K. (1981): Persuasion: Theory and context, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
REIJNIERSE, W. G., BURGERS, CH. KRENNMAYR, T. y STEEN, G. (2018): “MIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate”, Corpus Pragmatics, 2, pp. 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7
RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ, F. y OTAL CAMPO, J. (2002): Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication, Albolote: Comares.
RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ, F. y PÉREZ HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2011): “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges”, Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), pp. 161-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
SCHANK, R. y ABELSON, R. P. (1977): Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ; NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SEMINO E. (2008): Metaphor in Discourse, Cambridge, University Press.
SHARIFIAN, F. y PALMER, G.B. (eds.) (2007): Applied cultural linguistics. Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
STEEN, G., et al. (2010): A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
STEEN, G. (2011): “Metaphor, Language, and Discourse Processes”, Discourse Processes, 48 (8), pp. 585-591, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606424
STEEN, G. (2017): “Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues”, Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), pp. 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001
STEFANOWITSCH, A. (2006): “Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy”, Stefanowitsch, A. y Gries, S.T. (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-16.
STOCKWELL, P. (2001): “Towards a critical Cognitive Linguistics?”, Poetics and Linguistics Association Conference Papers (ed.), Poetics, linguistics and history: Discourses of war and conflict, South Africa: Potchefstroom University, pp. 510-528.
TURNER, M. (1991): Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science, Princeton, NJ: University Press.
VALENZUELA, J., IBARRETXE-ANTUÑANO, I. y HILFERTY, J. (2012): “La semántica cognitiva”, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. y Valenzuela, J. (dirs.), Lingüística cognitiva, Madrid: Anthropos, pp. 41-68.
VAN DIJK, T. A. (1997): Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, London: SAGE.
VAN DIJK, T. A. (1998): Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach, London: SAGE.
VAN DIJK, T.A. (2000): “Parliamentary debates”, Wodak, R. y Van Dijk. T. A. (eds.), Racism at the top. Parliamentary Discourse on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag, pp. 45-78.
VAN DIJK, T.A. (2009): Society and discourse, Cambridge: University Press.
WODAK, R. (2006): “Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing Cognitive approaches in CDA”, Discourse Studies, 8(1), pp. 179-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059566