Abstract:
The article considers the problem of the metaphor power, namely, how the contents of metaphorical mappings in speech affects the persuasiveness of a given message. The author analyzes the relationship between the contents of a speech message and decision making, as well as studies that are aimed at analyzing the content of metaphors and its function. On the basis of the original methodology, an empirical study is implemented, it is based on the hypothesis that the metaphor content really affects the persuasiveness of a message and that there is the possibility of a quantitative calculation of the strength of this persuasive effect. As a research methodology, a two-stage experiment is used, where in the first stage 20 authors wrote texts on a given topic, and in the second 162 respondents identified the author’s point of view. The texts were analyzed using the metaphor content index (MCI), after which the original and perceived author’s viewpoints were compared with the content of the metaphors used. The results showed that the calculation of the metaphor content index can only partially be used to determine the strength of the speech impact of the metaphor. Intercultural, intra-social, professional, inter-linguistic variations lead to significant variations in both the producing and comprehension of metaphorical mappings. The main conclusion of theoretical and empirical study is the fact that the specific content of metaphors, as well as their variations, can be an effective tool for enhancing persuasiveness. However, each researcher should analyze the content of metaphorical transfers in relation to specific extralinguistic, that is, primarily cultural and social factors.
Keywords: speech impact, metaphor, metaphor power, metaphor content, communicative impact
For citation: Kalinin O.I. The correlation between metaphor content and the message persuasive power. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2020, no 4, рр. 82–92 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Oleg I. Kalinin
Military University of the Ministry of Defense
(Russian Federation, Moscow)
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1807-8370;
e-mail: okalinin.lingua@gmail.com
References:
1. Budaev EV., Chudinov AP. Metaphor in political interdiscourse. Yekaterinburg, 2006.
2. De Landtsheer C. Collecting Political Meaning from the Count of Metaphor. Metaphor and Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2009:59–78. DOI: 10.1057 / 9780230594647_5.
3. Baranov A.N. Descriptor theory of metaphor. M.; 2014.
4. Flusberg JS., Matlock T., Thibodeau P. War metaphors in public discourse Metaphor and Symbol; 2018:1-18. DOI: 10.1080 / 10926488.2018.1407992.
5. Kryshtaleva VE. Militaristic Metaphors in the Discourse of the Presidents of Russia and France at the beginning of the XXI century. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Series, 2019;17(2):77–90. DOI: 10.25205 / 1818-7935-2019-17-2-77-90.
6. Baranov AN., Zinken J. Die metaphorische Struktur des öffentlichen Diskurses in Russland und Deutschland: Perestrojka- und Wende-Periode. Metapher, Bild und Figur. Osteuropäische Sprach- und Symbolwelten. General eds. Symanzik B., Birkfellner G., Sproede A. Hamburg; 2003:93-121.
7. Drulak P. Metaphors Europe Lives by: Language and Institutional Change of the European Union. EUI Working Papers, 2004;15. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/reader/45671079. Accessed June 26, 2020.
8. Kalinin OI. On the question of the dependence of the persuasiveness of a speech message on the number of metaphors. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2020;2:31-43. DOI: 10.29025 / 2079-6021-2020-2-31-43.
9. Sopory P. Metaphor and Attitude Accessibility. Southern Communication Journal. 2006;71(3):251-272. DOI: 10.1080 / 10417940600846037.
10. Van Stee SK. Meta-Analysis of the Persuasive Effects of Metaphorical vs. Literal Messages. Communication Studies. 2018;69(5):545-566. DOI: 10.1080 / 10510974.2018.1457553.
11. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-291.
12. Payne JW., Bettman JR., Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, 1993.
13. Wagenaar WA., Keren G., Lichtenstein S. Islanders and hostages: Deep and surface structures of decision problems. Acta Psychologica. 1988;67(2):175-189. DOI: 10.1016 / 0001-6918 (88) 90012-1.
14. Heath C., Tversky A. Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainity. 1991;4(1):5-28. DOI: 10.1007 / BF00057884.
15. Goldstein WM., Weber EU. Content and Discontent: Indications and Implications of Domain Specificity in Preferential Decision Making. Psychology. 1995;83-136. DOI: 10.1016 / S0079-7421 (08) 60308-4.
16. Beach LR. Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, 1990.
17. Pennington N., Hastie R. A theory of explanation-based decision making. Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods. General eds Klein G. et al. Norwood; 1993:188-201.
18. Chudinov AP. Russia in a Metaphorical Mirror: A Cognitive Study of Political Metaphor (1991–2000): Monograph. Yekaterinburg, 2001.
19. Kalinin OI. A discourse metaphor for coronavirus in the PRC media. MSLU Bulletin. 2020. In Print.
20. Kovyazina MA., Ilyushchenya TA., Khabibullina SB. Means of Expressing Negative Assessment in Describing Western Sanctions Policy Toward Russia and Russian Retaliatory Sanctions in British Online Media Texts: A Corpus Study. Political linguistics. 2018;2:61–67.
21. Samkova MA. The pragmatics of metaphor and metonymy in media texts. Ecology of language and communication practice. 2019:99-111.
22. De Landtsheer C. Crisis Style or Radical Rhetoric? The Speech by Dyab Abou Jahjah, Leader of the Arab European League. Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. General eds. Hart C., Lukes D. Cambridge; 2007:57–81.
23. Gauss H. Human behavior during long-term economic recession. Malle, Belgium; 1981.
24. De Landtsheer C. The language of prosperity and crisis, a case study in political semantics. Politics and Individual. 1994;4(2):63–85.
25. Kövecses Z. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge, 2005.
26. Kalinin O. War Lessons or how Social and Personal Background Shapes Our Perception. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education. 2020; In Print. Available at: ijcrsee.com ›index.php… forthcoming / download / 824/338. Accessed Juny 26, 2020.
27. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, 1980.