A Metaphorical Analysis of Electoral Texts: The Case of Philippine and Taiwanese Online News Commentaries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56498/412022322Keywords:
contrastive rhetoric, intercultural rhetoric, metaphors, metaphorical analysis, online news commentariesAbstract
Drawing on contrastive rhetoric tradition, this paper analyzes the metaphorical expressions utilized in the online news commentaries about the 2016 presidential electoral issues of two Asian countries, the Philippines and Taiwan. Upon a close scrutiny of the data, results show that Filipino journalists tend to thrive on individualistic issues dealing with certain political candidates whereas Taiwanese news writers seem to focus more on collective issues relating to a group such as political party and matters pertaining to their country in general. The data further revealed that Philippine commentaries are longer, contain more word-types and metaphor-laden while Taiwanese articles are shorter, indirect, and loaded with direct quotations. Additionally, findings disclosed four dominant metaphorical themes describing the electoral campaign procedure of the two countries as: ‘straight campaign’, ‘dirty campaign’, ‘witchcraft campaign’ and ‘warlike campaign’. Finally, this study concludes that metaphorical choice reflects the writer’s cognitive and socio-political stance. Pedagogical implications are offered in the light of these findings.
References
Asmali, M., & Çelik, H. (2017). EFL teachers‟ conceptualizations of their roles through metaphor analysis. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 01-13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159137.pdf
Awab, S., & Norazit, L. (2013). ‘Challenging’ times or ‘turbulent’ times: A study of the choice of metaphors used to refer to the 2008 economic crisis in Malaysia and Singapore. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0010
Aydin, G., & Baysan, S. (2018). Perceptions of postgraduate students on academic writing skills: A metaphor analysis study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 212-239. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1184378
Barry, C., Brownell, V., & Schlesinger, M. (2009). Obesity metaphors: How do beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy? Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 7-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre - Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of press conferences. Discourse and Society, 173-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057
Charteris-Black, J., & Ennis, T. (2001). A comparative study of metaphor in English and Spanish financial reporting. English for Special Purposes, 20, 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00009-0
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press.
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.4.309
Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). The use of indirectness devices in Persian and English argumentative written discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 60-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i3.1733
Dayag, D. T. (1997). Illocutionary acts in Philippine English editorials. Teaching English for Specific Purposes, X(1), 109-139. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ720531.pdf
Dayag, D. T. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric and second language teaching. In A. Bernardo, & R. Borromeo, Visions for education: Essays on Philippine Education in Honor of Br. Andrew Gonzales FSC. Manila: Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational Research, College of Education, DLSU-Manila.
Ene, E., McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 100664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100664
Falck, M. J. (2012). Metaphor variation across L1 and L2 speakers of English: Do differences at the level of linguistic metaphor matter? In F. MacArthur, J. Martinez, M. S. Garcia, & A. P. Piriz, Metaphor in use, context, culture, and communication (Vol. 38). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Genuino, C. F. (2002). Cohesion: A revelation of cultural practices. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33 (2). https://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15459618
Gibbs, R. (2015). The allegorical character of political metaphors in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.05gib
Gustilo, L. E. (2002). A contrastive analysis of American English and Philippine English news leads. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(2).
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Halliday, M., & Mattheissen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd Ed.). Hodder Arnold.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In U. Connor & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 89 - 109). TESOL.
Huang, K.-C., & Tseng, M.-Y. (2020). The creative use of DEFEAT IS CONTROL in metaphors for sport: A study of NBA headlines written in Chinese. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 14- 29. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712632
Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (2006). The handbook of World Englishes. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances? In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 82-169). Longman.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kubota, R. (1992). Contrastive rhetoric of Japanese and English: A critical approach. University of Toronto.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 1(25), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587031
Lopez, M. R., & Lopis, M. (2010). Metaphorical pattern analysis in financial texts: Framing the crisis in positive or negative metaphorical terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3300–3313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.001
Mabuan, R. A. (2017). A contrastive rhetorical analysis of Philippine and Sri Lankan English news commentaries. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 330-340. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4918
MacArthur, F, Oncins-Martinez, J. L., Sanchez-Garcia, M., & Piquer-Piriz, A. M. (2012). Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication (Vol. 38, pp. 217-236). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Matsuda, P. (1997). Contrastive Rhetoric in Context: A Dynamic model of L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90005-9
McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 12-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001
Mohamed, A., & Omer, M. (2000). Texture and culture: Context cohesion as a marker of rhetorical organization in Arabic and English narrative texts. RELC Journal, 31(2), 45-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100203
Moreno, A. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor (Ed.), Contrastive Rhetoric Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (Vol. 168, pp. 25-44). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Qi, F. (2007). 35 years' research in contrastive rhetoric in Japan and China: Methods, findings and implicational issues for teaching L2 writing in EFL context. Asian Englishes, 10(1), 62-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2007.10801200
Ranosa-Madrunio, M. (2004). The discourse organization of letters of complaint to editors in Philippine English and Singapore English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 67–97.
Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2002). The presentation of self and 'self-disclosure': A contrastive rhetorical analysis of Philippine advice columns in English and Filipino. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33, 53-66.
Sahlane, A. (2013). Metaphor as rhetoric: Newspaper op/Ed debate of the prelude to the 2003 Iraq war. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.736397
Schoor, C. (2015). Political metaphor, a matter of purposeful style on the rational, emotional and strategic purposes of political metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(1), 82-101. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.1.05sch
Scollon, R. (2000). Generic variability in news stories in Chinese and English: A contrastive study of five days' newspaper. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 761-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00092-2
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Trim R. (2012). The limits of comprehension in cross-cultural metaphor: Networking in drugs terminology. In F. MacArthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sánchez-García, & A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Eds.), Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication (pp. 217–238). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Underwood, A. E. M. (2021, January 14). Metaphors. Grammarly Blog. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
Urena, J. M. (2012). Conceptual types of terminological metaphors in marine biology: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis from an experientialist perspective. In F MacArthur, J. O. Martinez, M. S. Garcia, & A. P. Piriz (Eds.), Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication (Vol. 38, pp. 239-260). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ya, C. C. (2012). Gestures, language, and what they reveal about thought. In F. MacArthur, J. Martinez, M. S. Garcia, & A. P. Piriz (Eds.), Metaphor in Use: Context, culture, and communication (Vol. 38, pp. 261-282). Benjamins Publishing Company.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
