The wrestling with a pig in the mud metaphor in the service of liberal ideology: a critical analysis

Metaphors are used in political discourse in order to advance one particular view of the world whilst delegitimising other ideologies and belittling political opponents. The author verifies this claim by analysing the wrestling with a pig in the mud metaphor in light of the Critical Metaphor Analysis model and by providing broad reference to the socio-political context of the 2019 European Parliament election in Poland. Consistent with the premises of the selected paradigm, the investigation is performed at three intermingling levels. Basic categories of source domains present in the complex metaphorical structure are identified at the descriptive level. At the interpretative level, attention is directed towards mapping out correspondences between source and target domains. Finally, at the motivational level, the author identifies the ideological message and political intentions embedded in the metaphor’s use.Katarzyna Pawłowska is a lecturer at The Faculty of Philology of The University of Białystok. Her main teaching areas are descriptive grammar of the English language, comparative linguistics and discourse analysis. She obtained her Ph.D. degree in Cognitive Semantics from the University of Warsaw. Her current research is in the area of Critical Discourse Analysis, with particular focus on deliberate usage of conceptual metaphors in political persuasion.University of BiałystokBarden, J. 2009. Metaphor and context: A perspective from Artificial Intelligence. In: A. Musolff & J. Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse, 79-94. London: Palgrave.Barry, D., Carroll, B. & Hansen, H. 2006. To text or context? Endotextual, exotextual, and multi-textual approaches to narrative and discursive organizational studies. Organization Studies 27(8): 1091-1110.Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1): 1-22.Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1): 193-216.Bischoping, K. & Gazso, A. 2016. Analyzing Talk in the Social Sciences: Narrative, Conversation and Discourse Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.Burzyński, R. 2013. Metafory jako narzędzie polityki i oddziaływania politycznego. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Warsaw University.Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric – The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Cottle, S. 2000. Introduction. Media research and ethnic minorities: Mapping the field. In: S. Cottle (ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries, 1-30. Buckingham: Open University Press.Coxall, B., Robins, L. & Leach, R. 2003. Contemporary British Politics. London: Palgrave.Deignan, A. 1997. Metaphors of desire. In: K. Harvey & C. Shalom (eds.), Language and Desire, 21-42. London: Routledge.Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51-58.Foucault, M. 1969. L’Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.Gibbs, R. W. 1992. Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review 99: 572-577.Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gibbs, R. W. 1997. How language reflects the embodied nature of creative cognition. In: T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes, 351-373. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21(3): 434-458.Goaty, A. 2006. Humans, animals, and metaphors. Society and Animals 14(1):15-37.Grady, J. E. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Berkeley: University of California Press. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.Higgins, E. Tory & Eitam, B. 2014. Priming … shmiming: It’s about knowing when and why stimulated memory representations become active. Social Cognition 32: 97-114.Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kövecses, Z. 2015. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kövecses, Z. 2017. Conceptual metaphor theory: Some new proposals. LaMiCuS 1 (1): 16-32.Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Krzeszowski, T. P. 1997. Angels and Devils in Hell. Elements of Axiology in Semantics. Warsaw: Energeia.Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Orthony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G. 2009 The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. New York: Penguin.Lakoff, G. 2012. Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4: 773-785.Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980 [2008]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Leezenberg, M. 2001. Contexts of Metaphor. Amsterdam/London: Elsevier.Liebes, T. & Ribak, R. 1991. A mother’s battle against TV news: A case study of political socialization. Discourse and Society 2(2): 203-222.Ling, S. 2010. A Cognitive study of war metaphors in five main areas of everyday English: Politics, business, sport, disease and love. (Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:397473/FULLTEXT01.pdf)Lizardo, O. 2012. The conceptual bases of metaphors of dirt and cleanliness in moral and non-moral reasoning. Cognitive Linguistics 23(2): 367-393.Liu, K. & Guo, F. 2016. A review on Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(5): 1076-1084.Maalej, Z. 2007. Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In: C. Hart & D. Lukeš (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Studies: Application and Theory, 132-158. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Mio, J. S. 1997. Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol 12(2): 113-33.Musolff, A. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Musolff, A. 2010. Metaphor, Nation, and the Holocaust: The Concept of the Body Politic. New York: Routledge.Musolff, A. 2014. Metaphorical parasites and “parasitic” metaphors. Semantic exchanges between political and scientific vocabularies. Journal of Language and Politics 13(2): 218-233.Musolff, A. 2019. Metaphor framing in political discourse. Mythos-Magazine. Politisches Framing 1: 1-10.Perrez, J., Reuchamps, M. & Thibodeau, P. H. (eds.). 2019. Variation in Political Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Rakova, M. 2002. The philosophy of embodied realism: A high price to pay? Cognitive Linguistics 13: 215-244.Rozkrut, D. et al. Mały Rocznik Statystyczny Polski 2018 (Concise Statistical Yearbook of Poland 2018). Warsaw: GUS.Sacristan, M. V. 2005. A critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to advertising gender metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3): 219-252.Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sherman, G. D. & Chlore, G. L. 2009. The color of sin. White and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science 20(8): 1019-1025.Steen, G. 2004. Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1295-1313.Steen, G. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 26-64.Steen, G., Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C. & Konijn, E. A. 2017. Impact of conventional and novel metaphors in news on issue viewpoint. International Journal of Communication 11: 2861-2879.Turner, M. 1990. Aspects of the Invariance Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1(2). 247-255.Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Tyson, L. 1999. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Van Dijk, T. 1988. News Analysis. Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Van Dijk, T. 1995. Power and the news media. In D. Paletz (ed.), Political Communication and Action, 9-36. New York: Hampton Press.Van Dijk, T. 1996. Discourse, power and access. In: C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds.). Texts and Practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, 84-104. London: Routledge.Van Dijk, T. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11: 11-52.Van Dijk, T. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Van Dijk, T. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 95-120. London: Sage Publications.Van Dijk, T. 2009. Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Van Dijk, T. 2011. Discourse and ideology. In: T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. A Multidisplinary Introduction, 379-407. London: Sage.Van Gorp, B. 2007. The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication 57(1): 60-78.Van Leeuwen, T. 2015. Multimodality. In: D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd edn), 447-461. London: John Wiley and Sons.Van Teeffelen, T. 1994. Racism and metaphor: the Palestinian–Israeli conflict in popular literature. Discourse and Society 5(3): 381-405.Wilson, John. 2015. Political Discourse. In: D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd edn), 775-794. London: John Wiley and Sons.27 (4/2019)375