Archetypal Metaphors in American Political Discourse

Abstract

This article conducts a cognitive-discursive analysis of American political discourse, identifying archetypal metaphors and classifying them into five types of speech markers. This article aims to demonstrate how archetypal metaphors structure political reality, fulfilling cognitive and emotional functions and reflecting the political strategies of leaders. The aim of the study was to identify and systematize archetypal metaphors in American political discourse based on speech markers that enable the correlation of metaphorical constructions with specific communicative situations arising from the content of political strategies and the goals pursued by politicians. The study’s hypothesis is that archetypal metaphors are not random stylistic embellishments of speech, but rather perform cognitive and emotional functions, structuring the perception of political reality. To achieve the research goal and confirm this hypothesis, the article utilized a cognitive-semantic analysis of metaphorical constructions; a discourse analysis of speech situations (inaugural speeches, crisis addresses, election campaigns, critical publications); a comparative analysis of the communication strategies of Joe Biden and Donald Trump; and a lexical-semantic interpretation of archetypal images (path, home, roots, battle, wounds, phoenix, shield, etc.).The research methodology relies on a cognitive-discursive approach, which views metaphor as a tool for conceptualizing political reality. Within this approach, five types of speech markers were identified: evaluative, explanatory, concealing, culturally referential, and synthetic. During the study, each marker was correlated with speech situations, which allowed us to identify patterns in the use of archetypal metaphors in political discourse. A cognitive-discourse analysis revealed that archetypal metaphors in American political discourse serve not only a stylistic but also a conceptual function, structuring the perception of political reality. The identification of five types of speech markers (evaluative, explanatory, concealing, culturally referential, and synthetic) allowed us to systematize metaphorical constructions and relate them to specific speech situations. The author’s approach to analyzing archetypal metaphors in political discourse is promising, as it identifies the cognitive and emotional functions of metaphor and links them to genre and communicative features. The promise of this method lies in its universality: it is applicable not only to American political discourse but also to the study of metaphor transformations in other national traditions and media contexts.