doi: 10.56294/sctconf2024.1172
REVIEW
Conceptual Metaphors and Event Schemas in the Conceptualization of Neoliberalism and Socialism in Presidential Inauguration Speeches: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Social Progress
Metáforas Conceptuales y Esquemas de Eventos en la Conceptualización del Neoliberalismo y Socialismo en Discursos de Inauguración Presidencial: Un Enfoque Multidisciplinario para el Progreso Social
Sara Nidhya Camacho Estrada1 
*, Wilber Orlando Romero Villarroel1 *, Edison Gerardo Llerena Medina1 *, Luis Efraín Velasteguí López2 *
1Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Ambato, Ecuador.
2Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador, Ambato, Ecuador.
Cite as: Camacho Estrada SN, Romero Villarroel WO, Llerena Medina EG, Velasteguí López LE. Conceptual Metaphors and Event Schemas in the Conceptualization of Neoliberalism and Socialism in Presidential Inauguration Speeches: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Social Progress. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024; 3:.1172. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1172
Submitted: 25-02-2024 Revised: 03-06-2024 Accepted: 30-09-2024 Published: 01-10-2024
Editor: Dr.
William Castillo-González
Corresponding author: Sara Nidhya Camacho Estrada *
ABSTRACT
Introduction: neoliberalism and socialism are two political ideologies that have been widely debated and conceptualized in various ways. This study investigates how these ideologies are represented through metaphors in the political discourse of Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s ex-president.
Objective: to explore how neoliberalism and socialism are conceptualized using metaphors in Correa’s presidential inauguration speeches.
Method: the study applied the Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the Event Schemas Classification System to analyze the corpus of Correa’s speeches. A bibliographic review was conducted by identifying relevant sources, while those not focused on political metaphor analysis were discarded.
Development: the results revealed a clear contrast in the conceptualization of both ideologies. Neoliberalism was metaphorically represented as WAR, CHAOS, CONFLICT, and DESTRUCTION, invoking images of bombs and disasters. In contrast, socialism was associated with metaphors of SHIELD, SWORD, and PROTECTION, framed as a battle to protect society. Correa strategically used these metaphors to persuade his audience and reinforce his political stance.
Conclusions: the study concluded that Correa’s use of metaphor served as a persuasive tool to polarize neoliberalism and socialism. The conceptualization of these ideologies reflects socio-cognitive and political perspectives, influencing audience perception and aligning with the ideological goals of his administration.
Keywords: Event Schemas; Political Discourse; Neoliberalism; Socialism; Polarization.
RESUMEN
Introducción: el neoliberalismo y el socialismo son dos ideologías políticas que han sido ampliamente debatidas y conceptualizadas de diversas maneras. Este estudio investiga cómo estas ideologías se representan a través de metáforas en el discurso político de Rafael Correa, ex-presidente de Ecuador.
Objetivo: explorar cómo el neoliberalismo y el socialismo se conceptualizan utilizando metáforas en los discursos de toma de posesión de Correa.
Método: el estudio aplicó la Teoría de la Metáfora Conceptual y el Sistema de Clasificación de Esquemas de Eventos para analizar los corpus de los discursos de Correa. Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica identificando fuentes relevantes, mientras que se descartaron aquellas que no se centraban en el análisis de metáforas políticas.
Desarrollo: los resultados revelaron un claro contraste en la conceptualización de ambas ideologías. El neoliberalismo se representó metafóricamente como GUERRA, CAOS, CONFLICTO y DESTRUCCIÓN, evocando imágenes de bombas y desastres. En contraste, el socialismo se asoció con metáforas de ESCUDO, ESPADA y PROTECCIÓN, enmarcado como una batalla para proteger a la sociedad. Correa utilizó estas metáforas estratégicamente para persuadir a su audiencia y reforzar su postura política.
Conclusiones: el estudio concluyó que el uso de metáforas por parte de Correa sirvió como una herramienta persuasiva para polarizar el neoliberalismo y el socialismo. La conceptualización de estas ideologías refleja perspectivas sociocognitivas y políticas, influyendo en la percepción del público y alineándose con los objetivos ideológicos de su administración.
Palabras clave: Event Schemas; Political Discourse; Neoliberalism; Socialism; Polarization.
INTRODUCCIÓN
Rafael Correa became president of Ecuador in three consecutive presidential terms: on November 26th, 2006; April 26th, 2009; and February 17th, 2013.(1) The ex-president’s speeches are concept constructions focused on neoliberalism and socialism. The way Correa creates an engaging persuasive story is through events lived in the country during colonialism, dictatorship, and the capitalist system of the most recent governments.(2) Events such as the international debts inherited from the last century’s war for independence, the purchase of weapons, the dictatorship of the 70’s, the territorial wars against Peru, the collapse of the financial system, the total cessation of banking activities in the 90’s, the debts from natural disasters, the dollarization in 2000, and the political instability caused by 13 presidents after the dictatorship since 1979 are used by Correa to judge the decisions made in the past by the right-wing political parties and blame them for the crisis in Ecuador.(3)
Focusing on these events, in section two of this study, there is a description of the theoretical base that guides this research which is centered on the conceptual metaphor theory and political discourse. In section three, there is an explanation of the method and data analysis.(4) Three research questions are included to guide this study:
1) How does Rafael Correa conceptualize neoliberalism and socialism from the event schemas perspective?(5)
2) What are the most relevant concepts under the event schemas classification? 3) How does his political position influence the source and target domains chosen?(6)
In Section 4 there is a description of a socio-cognitive approach to metaphor which was used to analyze conceptual metaphors through the event schemas bases. The socio-cognitive approach to metaphor focuses on appealing to social contexts to understand an idea or conceptual domain, in terms of another.(7)
Section 5 presents the conclusions and further research questions founded on the analysis of the ex-president’s speeches. The answers to the research questions are explained in this section as well as a concrete idea of the results found.
Theoretical framework
Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Semino(8), based on Lakoff and Johnson’s(7) seminal work explains metaphor as “systematic sets of correspondences, or ‘mappings’, across conceptual domains, whereby a ‘target’ domain (e.g. our knowledge about arguments) is partly structured in terms of a different ‘source’ domain (e.g. our knowledge about war)”. In the same way, Sullivan(9) claims “...in CMT that metaphor occurs when conceptual structures from one domain of experience is applied to a different, usually more abstract, domain”. These concepts define metaphor as a tool to understand ‘one thing in terms of another’; for example, Correa in his first speech said, “They [neoliberals] do not need bombers or aircraft carriers anymore. It is enough with the credits” where “CREDITS ARE BOMBS”. The neoliberalism (target domain) is understood in terms of (source domain). Credits are defined as bombs which cause destruction, harm and even exterminate in a conflict or war. Neoliberal system is the one that provides those credits that will exploit and destroy the ones who accept them. In this case, the neoliberal system attacks through debts that can’t be paid.(10)
Lakoff and Johnson(7) argument that metaphor is a cognitive phenomenon since mental processes are highly abstract. As consequence, it is necessary to use metaphors to explain and understand something things in specific contexts. This process is conducted through the mapping of semantic features from a source domain to a target domain. It is important to mention that the mapping process between source and target domains is unidirectional and invariant. Thus, in the metaphor ARGUMENTS ARE WAR; ARGUMENT is the target domain that is understood in terms of WAR which is the source domain.(11) It does not occur the other way round. Besides, when the conceptual transfer process or mapping takes place, the conceptual definition of WAR is taken, but not all of it. There is a blocking process of certain elements of this concept which is called the selective nature of mappings.(12) It happens to emphasize specific characteristics of the source and target domain. This choosing process is connected to the experience which could be spatial and perceptual or emotional as well as cultural.(13)
Event Schemas
Metaphors can be identified as event schemas according to characteristics described in Lakoff(15) “various aspects of event structure, including notions like states, changes, processes, actions, causes, purposes, and means, are characterized cognitively via metaphor in terms of space, motion, and force.” When classifying metaphors based on this description, it is important to analyze the context to interpret the real content of a metaphor. These schemas classification system allows to conceptualize a clear concept to structure another. Besides, they are based on experience and cultural factors.
In this line, Correa uses event schemas metaphors to show his actions, purposes and force. An example of an event structure metaphor taken from his third discourse is: “SOCIALISM IS A SWORD” where the target domain is socialism, and the source domain is sword. The target domain ‘socialism’ borrows the definition of ‘sword’ to conceptualize it. The mappings or connection between both sources let socialism be seen as a sword which fights against injustice. Furthermore, a sword can be managed by a gladiator, a hero, someone (socialism) who is defending his/her territory, rights, and freedom.(14)
In the same context, Lakoff(15) as cited by Kövecses(16), within the system of metaphors named Event Structure metaphors, includes sub-metaphors such as “CAUSES ARE FORCES, STATES ARE CONTAINERS, PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS, ACTION IS MOTION, DIFFICULTIES ARE IMPEDIMENTS (TO MOTION)”. This sub-classification determines specific metaphorical characteristics to classify other metaphors that can be understood in the same way.
To picture this definition another metaphor from the third ex-president’s speech is taken: “TOGETHERNESS IS A SHIELD” Where the target domain is togetherness, and the source domain is a shield. In this case, the union or togetherness is defined as a shield that is a wall born from togetherness. In other words, if they stay together, they will be safe and self-protected. SHIELD is related with the source domain WAR. It means that the neoliberalism attacks and they must protect and defend themselves. Keeping this in mind, as cited in Palmer(17) defines event-schemas as generalized knowledge about “what will happen in a given situation and often the order in which the individual events will take place”. Event-schemas are understood as abstractions which have constituent structures linked in time or in space. As shown in the above example, the event schema can be summarized as action-reaction = result.
In addition, Palmer(17) states “schemas are mental representations of some regularity in our experience”, “prepackaged expectations and ways of interpreting”, “frameworks that are linked together”, and units of abstract imagery which constitute cognitive models”. It is important to mention that Palmer uses the word scenario instead of event-schema in his studies. Most event schemas are thus based on experiences, interpretations, patterns, imagination and knowledge. The logical structure of schemas is organized in hierarchies from general to the specific. These structures are constructed of part-whole relations rather than kind-of relations and are conceptualized as war, mission, game, business and therapy according to the author. In the present study, the categories for event schemas were adapted according to the information found in the speeches, as follows: war, fight, battle, and bomb.
Political discourse
Charterist-Black(8) claims that metaphor is a figure of speech typically used in persuasion because it represents a novel way of viewing the world that offers some fresh insights. Since metaphor is persuasive, it is frequently employed discursively in rhetorical and argumentative language such as in the last political speeches mentioned. Metaphors are an important part of a discourse when trying to create a better communicative environment with an audience through arguments. These arguments become meaningful when creating connections between experiences in a determined cultural context.
Likewise, Correa’s speeches have a similar structure to Ritchie’s description(18) “politics is about material needs and actions…war, and natural disaster, as well as about more abstract need and values-freedom, justice, and dignity. All this complexity is reflected, in political discourse, in the metaphors people use and stories they tell”. In Correa’s discourses, he includes most of these issues to describe all the badness caused by neoliberalism and all the goodness that represents socialism in the new government.
A clear example against neoliberalism is presented in his second speech: “Thank God, they could steal everything, but not our hope”. On the other way, a description about the goodness of socialism is made: “We are people with clean hands and profound ethic”. Correa uses equivalents to familiar Greek myths, as is claimed by Nerlich, Johnson, and Clarke(19) cited in Ritchies(18), ‘opening Pandora’s Box’ which is equivalent in meaning to, ‘uncover the secrets’ (‘destapar la olla de grillos’). These descriptions unmask the hidden decisions and deals made by neoliberalism according to the ex-president’s description.
Along with the details described, coherence plays a significant role in a discourse according to Kövecses(16) who proposes “both universal embodiment and non-universal context affect the way people conceptualize the world in real communicative/discourse situations”. The author calls this influence, the “pressure of coherence”. In this case, the external factors and internal factors will depend on the speaker’s ability to link experiences to make a coherent speech. Once again, the ex-president bases his speeches on historical and cultural experiences of Ecuador.
Neoliberalism and Socialism
Metaphors can become a meaningful weapon when trying to convince a right-wing or left-wing audience; ‘the truth’ has a lot to do with politics; ‘the truth’ is built through a convincing story; on this regard, ‘The truth’ is what a speaker wants or pretends it to be.(20) That’s why it is fundamental to make a critical analysis of the political position of the speaker through the metaphors used in a speech. Indeed, metaphors are part of the construction that influences people’s understanding about various aspects of social life and politics, as well as the effects of influence on an audience’s behavior and beliefs. Lakoff(19), as cited in Figar(21) says that “the locus of metaphor is not in language ... but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another”. It is more important how, where and when something is said, rather than what was said. All these factors affect the audience’s position.
In general, words are used to touch voters’ emotions and influence their way of thinking to persuade them and get them thinking and or doing what others want. It is a subtle form of domination. Charteris-Black(22) describes the way politicians work on this objective in their audience.
Emotions are most of the time heartened by telling a delightful story which is linked to a right wing or a left-wing political position. In this context, when people take a position, it is because they are convinced of that ideology and want to support most of the actions taken by a leader. However, there are people who pretend to support that ideology because it is convenient or necessary at that time for their personal interests. These two situations are not important for a leader when trying to get more followers but will affect the person when making mistakes or is not powerful enough to keep his/her power in the nation.
In the same context, Charterist-Black(22) explains how the emotional impact can be increased in a leadership context. “The creation of heroes, victims and villains all imply arousal of emotions that are appropriate to the way humans respond to underlying feelings associated with protection of the family, loyalty to the tribe, fear of invasion by an unknown other”. Besides, empathy and support are extraordinarily strong persuasive weapons that are part of a logical protection system of the human being. When politicians include in their speeches a way to defend poor or weak people, a sense of security and protection is activated. As consequence, they follow this leader and trust on him or her.
This discursive politician process has a main objective related to domination, in reference to this, Rivas and Alcántara(23) claim “Max Weber linked the raison deter of political power to its legitimacy, conditioned by the belief (rational or emotional) that individuals invest in a specific order, trust has played a central role in the analysis of politics”. When a political party becomes a reliable group, it means that it has reached its purpose, legitimation. If a group is legitimized, it involves a consequence. It means that there is a delegitimized group, or the others.
Polarization
Zizek(24) explains the creation of two groups: the left-wing party and the right-wing party. The first one is recognized as part of a social body, while the second one represents the rejected one from that system. These lasts ones could become “representatives” or standing in for a new social group. This description is related to the idea of “we” and the “others”. According to Zizek(24) “multiculturalism “‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community. Multiculturalism is not a direct form of racism but rather a form of absolute otherization”. The result of this, as the author mentions, is that, as soon as minorities become a particular group with a cultural form of marginal identities, the very mention of capitalism incites accusations and confrontation.
Diamond(25), as cited by Romero-Trillo(26), claims ‘‘Power is not just the ability to coerce someone or to get them to do something against their will, but rather, it is the ability to interpret events and reality and have this interpretation accepted by others’’. Based on this position the purpose of a leader is to make his/her population accept the facts to arrive to the ‘otherization’ or the enemy, the scapegoat. The author calls it ‘membership categorization analysis’; the separation between we/our and they/there.
The power of discourse to convince and control people depends on its structure, content and context, among others. When the speaker has persuaded the audience, it will be possible to have the audience’s attention. Under these circumstances, when analyzing a political discourse that includes metaphors, it must be considered the political position, ideas and its objectives. Given these points, a metaphor can create and transport the audience to a different place because it is related to the audience’s background. Arguments and metaphors are some of the most powerful strategies to persuade the audience through political discourse.
It is important to mention that polarization is related to ideology where identity, goals, relation to other groups and resources or interests are important for social definition of a community, specially ‘Us vs Them’. In this case, when the division of a group occurs, a polarized structure grows with all or some of these characteristics: power, abuse, domination, competition, cooperation, among others. The creation of an enemy or the other is vital because it is part of a legitimation process of ‘Us’ and the delegitimization of ‘them’ or the ‘others. Van Dijk.(27)
METHOD
The speeches selected to be analyzed in this study were the ones that took place in three presidential inaugurations of Rafael Correa.
- The first presidential political speech took place on January 15th, 2007; it contains 4 710 words.
- The second speech took place on August 10th, 2009; it contains 7 959 words.
- The third speech was given on May 24th, 2013; it contains 13 189 words.
A total number of 9 metaphors were identified following Stefanowicz’s(28) identification method by which the target domains NEOLIBERALISM AND SOCIALISM, as well as all expressions belonging to the same semantic field were searched for. In the same way, the metaphors as a way of organizing a conceptual structure within cognitive linguistics as part of political discourse analysis is considered.(29)
As consequence, this study directs a quantification of metaphors with a clear emphasis on qualitative analysis. The qualitative section is represented through a list of metaphors found in the discourse corpus. The identification of targets and domains as well as the explanation of the mappings behind each metaphor are described in the text and in charts. The qualitative data have been included in different tables in section 4.3 below. These tables show the percentages of each schema per discourse.
This methodological approach follows Charterist-Black’s(8) idea that “qualitative judgments are necessary initially to establish what will be counted as metaphor. Then quantitative analysis can allow us to measure the frequency of metaphor in a corpus and to estimate the extent to which a particular metaphorical sense of word form has become conventionalized”. The process followed to analyze Correa’s political speeches was organized in five steps:
1. First, an extensive and intensive reading of the texts to identify metaphors that conceptualize the idea of socialism and neoliberalism was made.
2. Second, the identification of the source domains in metaphors took place.
3. The correspondence or mapping with the target domains was made following Stepanovich’s (30) “metaphorical pattern analysis” of target domains. It consisted of selecting and searching for vocabulary related directly to target and source domain concepts, then, identifying cases where those words were embedded in metaphorical expressions and, thus, the metaphorical mappings that link the target and source domain.
4. The corresponding sections of the texts were translated from Spanish to English.
5. Metaphors were classified into event schemas classification.
6. The results were analyzed to establish the conclusions based on the research questions.
DEVELOPMENT
The metaphorical conceptualization of Neoliberalism
The metaphors that conceptualize neoliberalism are presented under the event schemas, each one with their specific characteristics.
Neoliberalism Event Schemas
In this case, metaphors are placed according to Lakoff(31) who states that event schemas include various aspects like states, changes, processes, actions, causes, purposes, and means, which are characterized cognitively via metaphor in terms of space, motion, and force. As result, these metaphors are classified based on their conceptualization of WAR and BOMBS.
THE PAST GOVERNMENT (NEOLIBERALISM) WAS CHAOS/WAR. THE FUTURE IS ORDER.
(D1.1) When our country was devastated by war and chaos.
CREDITS ARE BOMBS THAT DESTROY THE COUNTRY.
(D1.2) No more bombers or aircraft carriers are needed, just credits. (D1.2) They need no longer bombers or aircraft carriers, credits are enough.
NEOLIBERAL ECONOMY IS A BOMB.
(D1.3) Because with this bombardment of what they call science, which is closer to religion than to science, they have convinced us that the goal of the economy is to control inflation.
In metaphors 1 – 3, neoliberalism is defined as conflict, antagonism, contention, hostility, destruction, war. According with this description, it is presupposed that the future (socialism) will be the opposite in relation to the past. This is a way, neoliberalism is delegitimized. Furthermore, the economy managed by neoliberalism is described as bad pseudo-science/religion which is skillfully represented as “a bomb”. A bomb causes destruction, harm and deaths. In this context neoliberalism is ruin and devastation. It persuades people and gets support for inappropriate decisions just like the way some religions operate with their followers. It is a massive weapon of destruction that destroys the country.
The metaphorical conceptualization of Socialism
The metaphors that conceptualize socialism are also presented through event schemas. Event Schemas These metaphors are classified based on their conceptualization of FIGHTER, SHIELD, SWORD.
SOCIALISM IS A FIGHTER THAT LIBERATES.
(D2.4) With this bombardment of what they call science, which is closer to religion than to science, they have convinced us that the goal of the economy is to control inflation. (D2.4) As heirs of the social liberation struggles against all forms of domination and colonialism. In this case, Socialism is seen as a brave liberator who fights to defend his citizens. This hero is responsible for people’s wellness under its protective system of ‘nurturant parent’. It will defend equality and justice, even fight against any kind of domination or exploitation.
SOCIALISM IS A FIGHTER THAT LIBERATES FROM POVERTY AND INJUSTICE.
(D3.5) There remains pending our second and definitive independence: the independence from poverty, inequality, and injustice. (D3.5) Our second and definitive independence remained pending: Independence from poverty, inequity, injustice. Socialism is described once more as a fighter in a battle to free citizens from poverty and injustice. It conceptualizes independence as a symbolic battle that continues through time trying to free people from every social, economic and political problem. Therefore, socialism is the hero, the fighter and the solution to become completely free.
SOCIALISM IS FIGHTER/CONQUEROR THAT FIGHTS FOR DREAMS.
(D3.6) Stop the coup attempts, to conquer dreams, to fight for hope. (D3.6) Stop the coup, to conquer dreams, to fight for hope. (D3.7) But we have already achieved the main thing: defeating despair. (D3.7) We have already achieved the main goal: defeat hopelessness.
HOMELAND IS A SHIELD THAT PROTECTS SOCIALISM FROM NEOLIBERALISM.
(D3.8) Therefore, the Great Homeland is no longer just an ideal of our liberators, it is a necessity for survival, a shield against exploitation, against neocolonialism. (D3.8) For this reason, the Great Homeland is no longer just an ideal of our liberators, it is a necessity for survival, a shield against exploitation, against neocolonialism.
SOCIALISM IS AN UNSHEATHED SWORD FIGHTING AND RESISTING AGAINST INJUSTICE/NEOLIBERALISM.
(D3.9) The liberating sword of Simon Bolívar, who thought in centuries and looked across the continent, remains unsheathed until poverty, inequality, and exclusion are erased from the Great Homeland forever. (D3.9) The libertarian sword of Simon Bolivar, who thought for centuries and looked at it as a continent, remains unsheathed until poverty, inequality and exclusion are erased from the Great Homeland forever. In examples 6, 7, 8 and 9, socialism keep been described as a protector and a fighter that keeps safe to the country and citizens. Besides, makes a relation with de liberator and the past to keep a closer connection with a historical hero. This hero fought with a sword and a shield, as consequence those are very symbolic tools to understand socialism as a brave fighter and liberator.
Socialism makes a call for working together to become stronger and be able to protect themselves from the right-wing system with the symbolic togetherness of shield and sword. Socialism tries to sell the idea of a leader who has the mission to fight and free slaves from a neoliberal system. Socialism is described as the hope that will liberate and protect the country from exploitation. In addition, a clear connection is made between neocolonialism and neoliberalism to link negative concepts brought from the past to the present. Furthermore, socialism, as the fighter and defender of the social classes, will liberate people from slavery and poverty. On the other hand, neoliberalism is conflict, antagonism, contention, hostility, destruction, and war. As socialism is the future, justice and freedom, it is represented as the only option to liberate the country from neoliberalism. Socialism has given back hope to people. The light of socialism will win the battle against the dark neoliberalism.
In the present study, the 9 metaphors found are classified according to the three discourses. All these metaphors are related to the target domain NEOLIBERALISM AND SOCIALISM. This quantitative classification shows the percentages or weight each category has in each discourse as follows:
|
Table 1. Number of metaphors per speech |
|||
|
Date of speeches |
Number of words |
Event Schemas |
Total percentage metaphors per speech |
|
1.- 15/01/2009 |
4,710 |
3 |
33,33 % |
|
2.- 10/08/2013 |
7,959 |
1 |
11,11 % |
|
3.- 24/05/2015 |
13,189 |
5 |
55,55 % |
|
Total metaphors per schema |
25,858 |
9 |
100 % |
|
Table 2. Metaphors based on event schemas categories |
|||||
|
Categories |
D.1 15/01/2007 |
D.2 10/08/2009 |
D.3 24/05/2013 |
Total per category |
Total % |
|
war |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
11,11 % |
|
bomb |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
22,22 % |
|
fighter |
0 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
44,44 % |
|
shield |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
11,11 % |
|
sword |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
11,11 % |
|
Total |
3 |
1 |
5 |
9 |
100 % |
|
Percentage |
33,33 % |
11,11 % |
55,55 % |
100 % |
|
‘Based on the event schemas tables 1 and 2, Correa uses 9 metaphors of which 3 (33,33 %) belong to the first discourse;1 (11,11 %) corresponds to the second discourse, and 5 (55,55 %) belong to the third discourse. The most conceptualized schema were metaphors related to ‘FIGHTER’ with 4 (44,44 %), followed by ‘BOMB’ with 3 (33,33 %) metaphors. These results show that Correa has moved from an offensive discourse into a defensive discourse because of the categorizations used when describing socialism and neoliberalism. In detail, neoliberalism is represented as WAR and CHAOS: a war that does not use aircrafts, but oppresses and destroys the country through debts, just as bombs do. Socialism is conceptualized as a warrior with a sword and shield those fights for freedom and dreams.
This process is clearly setting two groups under the otherization concept described by Romero-Trillo and Cheshire (2014:43) “This sense of belonging is created through a process of differentiation characterized by identity formulation, in which “self and other” become “us and them”. It is a strategy of division that occurs when each group is assigned positive or negative values. In this case the ex-president, using conceptual metaphors, describes socialism as a hero that fights and neoliberalism as a villain that attacks. Correa has given a positive and a negative value to two different political positions.
CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to identify and analyze the conceptualization of neoliberalism and socialism used by Rafael Correa in his political presidential speeches. This study reveals the metaphors classified into event schemas. This information is the response to the research questions.
The first question is regarding the analysis of Rafael Correa’s conceptualization of neoliberalism and socialism in his speeches. These conceptualizations were in general negative toward neoliberalism and positive toward socialism as follows: Neoliberalism is described as war and chaos, conflict and bombs while socialism is the fighter, the warrior that protects the country with a shield and a sword. Under the ‘otherization’ concept, the division line was established between socialists and neoliberals in his discourses with words such as, ‘we and the others’.
In reference to the second question, the conceptualization of neoliberalism versus socialism is also negative. It describes a constant fight in a war where a hero will save the poor people by giving them hope and a reason to be together, dreaming about a bright future under a socialist system. These schemas are representations of war, bombs, chaos and battles. Finally, the last research question is regarding the how the president’s political position and experience influence on the source and target domains chosen. Correa describes his political model as a 21st Century Socialism since his government is Bolivariano (socialist communist) and Alfarista (liberal). It demonstrates that the president strongly supports his left-wing position against the right wing as most of the metaphors used are clearly influenced by negative descriptions in his discourses. In the event schemas analysis, everything is a constant battle or conflict against neoliberalism.
Further research
In reference to further research, it is intended to study Correa’s final discourse that took place on May 2017 when he ended his presidential period to compare the first speech with his final speech from a conceptual metaphor’s perspective.
REFERENCES
1. Tsitoura M. Conceptual metaphor theory in English language teaching: developing EFL learners’ metaphor awareness. 2023.
2. Baicchi A, Mendoza FR de. Cognitive linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Internet]. 2005 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://www.academia.edu/722584/Cognitive_linguistics_internal_dynamics_and_interdisciplinary_interaction
3. Chiriboga MN. Dos décadas perdidas: los ochenta y los noventa. Cuestiones Económicas. 2004 Ene 14;20(1).
4. Correa R. Discurso de Posesión de Rafael Correa Delgado como presidente constitucional de la república del Ecuador. 2007 [Internet]. Disponible en: http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/07/Posesion-Presidente-2007.pdf
5. Correa R. Intervención del presidente de la república, Rafael Correa durante la posesión presidencial. 2009 [Internet]. Disponible en: http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2013/10/10-1009-Discurso_posesion_Presidencial.pdf
6. Correa R. Posesión presidencial. El capital domina al mundo. 2013 [Internet]. Disponible en: http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/01/2013-05-24-DISCURSO-DE-POSESI%C3%93N-MANDATO-2013-2017-WEB-1.pdf
7. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by [Internet]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2003 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html
8. Charteris-Black J. Metaphor in discourse by Elena Semino. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2010 Feb;14.
9. Mertika M, Marhayani DA, Mariana D, Setyowati R, Sulistri E, Mursidi A. Digital workbook in virtual learning environment. En: Uden L, Liberona D, editores. Learning technology for education challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 21-9.
10. Dirven R, Frank R, Pütz M. Cognitive models in language and thought: ideology, metaphors and meanings. Cognitive models in language and thought: ideology, metaphors and meanings. 2012.
11. MacArthur FM. Metaphor in use [Internet]. John Benjamins Publishing Company [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://benjamins.com/catalog/hcp.38
12. Ortony A, editor. Metaphor and thought [Internet]. 2.a ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/metaphor-and-thought/27B5516DA776E01E828144B035CC7B38
13. Geeraerts D. Cognitive linguistics: basic readings. Walter de Gruyter; 2006. 497 p.
14. Romero-Trillo J, Cheshire C. The construction and disarticulation of national identities through language vis-à-vis the Scottish referendum of independence. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. 2014 Jun;10(1):41-66.
15. Lakoff G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind [Internet]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1990 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo3632089.html
16. Kövecses Z. Metaphor and culture. 2010;2:197-220.
17. Palmer GB. Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. University of Texas Press; 1996. 365 p.
18. Ritchie LD. Metaphor [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/metaphor/072D04A82F23FE3F2FF14ACA73F4FDB4
19. Jackendoff R, Aaron D. Review of more than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Language. 1991;67(2):320-38.
20. Sharifian F. Cultural linguistics: cultural conceptualisations and language. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2017. 191 p.
21. Figar V. Analysis of conceptual metaphors in the political discourse of daily newspapers: structure, function, and emotional appeal (Ma Thesis) [Internet]. Rochester, NY; 2013 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2464713
22. Charteris-Black J. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Springer; 2004. 271 p.
23. Sáez MA, Montero MG, Rivas C. Politics and political elites in Latin America: challenges and trends [Internet]. Springer Suiza; 2020 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=860795
24. Musolff A. Metaphor and political discourse: analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. 2004.
25. Diamond J. Status and power in verbal interaction [Internet]. John Benjamins Publishing Company [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.40
26. Romero-Trillo J. The representation of liminality conflicts in the media. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2011 Jul;6:143-58.
27. Van Dijk. Contemporary critical discourse studies. En Bloomsbury Academic; 2014 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/contemporary-critical-discourse-studies
28. Rhodes L. The Chicago linguistic society. 2016 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: http://chicagolinguisticsociety.org/list.html
29. Soares da Silva A, Cuenca M, Romano M. The conceptualisation of austerity in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish press. En 2017. p. 345-68.
30. ImreA. Metaphors in CL [Internet]. Scribd. 2010 [citado 2024 Jun 27]. Disponible en: https://www.scribd.com/document/59717829/09-2010-ImreA-Metaphors-in-CL
31. Lakoff G. Don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate: the essential guide for progressives. Chelsea Green Publishing Company; 2004.
FINANCING
The authors did not receive funding for the development of this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Sara Camacho Estrada.
Data curation: Wilber Orlando Romero Villarroel.
Formal analysis: Edison Gerardo Llerena Medina.
Research: Sara Camacho Estrada.
Methodology: Wilber Orlando Romero Villarroel.
Project administration: Edison Gerardo Llerena Medina.
Resources: Efraín Velasteguí López.
Software: Sara Camacho Estrada.
Supervision: Wilber Orlando Romero Villarroel.
Validation: Edison Gerardo Llerena Medina.
Visualization: Efraín Velasteguí López.
Writing - original draft: Sara Camacho Estrada.
Writing - revision and editing: Wilber Orlando Romero Villarroel.