Abstract :

This article identifies, describes, and compares a number of common source domains in Vietnamese and American English political discourses, with the aim of clarifying how politicians select source domains. In doing so, it affirms that through source–target mappings, abstract concepts and messages in political discourses are made concrete and more accessible to the public. A qualitative survey and analysis of 39 Vietnamese political discourse texts and 83 American English political discourse texts reveals that certain universal source domains such as JOURNEY, CONSTRUCTION, and FAMILY appear in both discourse systems, reflecting the way people conceptualize politics as a goal-directed process or a form of social construction. However, Vietnamese political discourses tend to prioritize source domains that emphasize collectivity, stability, and long-term orientation such as FAMILY and CONSTRUCTION; whereas American English political discourses are characterized by source domains that are competitive, confrontational, and individualized such as WAR, COMPETITION, and BUSINESS. These differences reflect the cultural characteristics, ideological orientations, and political organizational models of each country. The findings thus contribute to clarifying the relationship between language, cognition, and power in political discourses.

 

---

Keywords :

cognitive linguistics, Conceptual metaphor, contrastive analysis, political discourse, source domain.

---

References :

1. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
2. Gibbs, R. W. (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
4. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Kövecses, Z. (1999). “Metaphor: Does It Constitute or Reflect Cultural Models? in Gibbs, R. & Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167-188.
6. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge University Press.
7. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. OUP.
8. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor – A Practical Introduction (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980, 2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
13. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is Political Discourse Analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, Vol.11, p.11-52.
15. Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.