METAPHOR, METONYMY AND EVALUATION AS POLITICAL TOOLS OF DEMOCRATS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Abstract

The article explores the interaction of metaphor, metonymy, and evaluation in American political discourse using examples of public speeches by representatives of the US Democratic Party, where they try to persuade the public of economic victories through positive self-evaluation and devaluation of others. The main task is to examine whether there is a relationship between the ideological positions of the speakers and the subjects being evaluated. The article also analyzed and established the theoretical basis of previous studies covering the peculiarities of political discourse and analyzed the influence of metaphor and metonymy on the formation of evaluative judgments of addressees. The analyzed public speeches testify to the fact that metaphors and metonymies abound in this type of political discourse and that mostly such linguistic phenomena coincide with evaluation. A closer look at the relative frequencies indicates that political candidates consistently rely on different ways of generating favorable attitudes to create quite different images that will help them win votes in future elections while reducing the chances of opposing candidates to win. Focusing on judgments, politicians form an opinion about the normality (that is, how special/(un)ordinary is the state of human behavior), about the ability (that is, an assessment of competence and/or abilities) of the evaluated elements. A positive evaluation of human behavior from an ethical point of view contributes to optimistic perception of the speech in general. The results show that political figures use evaluation in their speeches in particular as a tool to justify and persuade the audience of the correctness of their economic decisions. At the same time, politicians use evaluation not only as an expression of their own ideological views, but also as an ideological tool that would contribute to their intentions to come to power in the future.