Advertisement

Constructing Political Identities Through Characterization Metaphor, Humor and Sarcasm: An Analysis of the 2012 Legislative Council Election Debates in Hong Kong

  • Foong Ha YapEmail author
  • Ariel Shuk-ling Chan
  • Brian Lap-ming Wai
Chapter
Part of the The Humanities in Asia book series (HIA, volume 5)

Abstract

This chapter examines how politicians use metaphor, humor and sarcasm to construct favorable political identities for themselves and unfavorable ones for their rivals. Data for analysis come from five televised debates during the 2012 Hong Kong Legislative Council Election. The chapter adopts Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) Conceptual Blending framework and analyzes how rival candidates spar with each other using characterization metaphors, and pays special attention to how politicians make use of metaphors as verbal indirectness strategies that mitigate the negative impacts of their face-threatening acts and in this way help them enhance, or at least maintain, their positive image with the general public.

Keywords

Political identities Metaphor Humor Sarcasm Electoral discourse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to gratefully acknowledge funding from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for support through an Internal Competitive Research Grant (HKPU G-YK85) for the research project entitled “Establishing Common Ground in Public Discourse: An Analysis of Electoral Speeches, Press Conferences and Q&A Sessions in Hong Kong”. We also wish to thank William Feng, Dennis Tay, Tak-sum Wong, Steven Ming-chiu Wong and Vivien Yang for invaluable comments. Various parts of this research have been presented earlier at the following conferences: the 2012 Annual Research Forum of the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (ARF), the 21st Annual Meeting of the International Association for Chinese Linguistics (ICAL-21), the 7th Free Linguistics Conference (FLC-7), the 2013 International Pragmatics Conference (IPRA-13), the 2013 International Conference on Political Humour in China, the 7th International Conference on Multimodality (7-ICOM), and the 2nd American Pragmatic Conference (AmPrA-2). We wish to thank the participants at these conferences for their helpful feedback, some of which relate to cross-cultural analyses on electoral strategies in other cultures.

References

  1. Attardo, Salvatore. 2001. Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boler, Megan, and Stephen Turpin. 2008. The daily show and crossfire: Satire and sincerity as truth to power. In Digital media and democracy: Tactics in hard times, ed. Megan Boler, 383–404. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cacciari, Christine. 1998. Why do we speak metaphorically? Reflections on the functions of metaphor in discourse and reasoning. In Figurative language and thought, eds. Albert N. Katz, Cristina Cacciari, Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., Mark Turner, 119–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, Shuk Ling, and Foong Ha Yap. 2015. “Please continue to be an anime lover”: On the use of defamation metaphors in Hong Kong political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng, Xiaojing. 2009. Chinese metaphors in political discourse: How the government of the People’s Republic of China criticizes the independence of Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation). Muncie, Indiana: Ball State University.Google Scholar
  10. Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Originally published (1985) Cambridge: MIT Press.].Google Scholar
  12. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbs Jr, Raymond W., and Nicole L. Wilson. 2002. Bodily action and metaphorical meaning. Style 36: 524–541.Google Scholar
  15. Howard, John. 2005. The Tories’ campaign is in difficulties because the party is divided about what it stands for. The Economist 375(8423): 38. http://www.economist.com/node/3892141.
  16. Inge, Thomas. 1990. Comics as Culture. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kiley, Frederick, and Jack Shuttleworth. 1971. Satire from Aesop to Buchwald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and Variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuo, Sai Hua. 2003. You’re a little rabbit in a pack of foxes”: Animal metaphors in Chinese political discourse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 31 (1): 72–100.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, Paul. 2006. Cracking up: American humor in a time of conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Liu, Dilin. 2002. Metaphor, culture, and world view: The case of American English and the Chinese language. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  24. Morreall, John. 1987. The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1997. Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse. Discourse and Society 8 (1): 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Punter, David. 2007. Metaphor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Semino, Elena, and Michela Masci. 1996. Politics is football: metaphor in the discourse of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Discourse and Society 7 (2): 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sun, Tingting. 2010. Adversarial questioning and answering strategies in Chinese government press conferences. Special issue on stance phenomena in Chinese: diachronic, discourse and processing perspectives. Taiwan. Journal of Linguistics 8 (2): 131–162.Google Scholar
  29. Taskona, Villy. 2009. Humor and image politics in parliamentary discourse: a Greek case study. Text & Talk 29 (2): 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner, Mark, and Gilles Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and symbolic activity 10 (3): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wai, Lap Ming and Foong Ha Yap. 2013. ‘What the ___?’—On the use of ellipsis and silence in sarcastic media discourse in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the 7th International Free Linguistics Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, September 27–28.Google Scholar
  32. Wei, Jennifer M. 2003. Politics in marriage and show business: Metaphors in recent Taiwan political discourse. In New Media Language, ed. Jean Aitchison, and Diana M. Lewis, 126–135. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, John. 1990. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Wong, Ming Chiu and Foong Ha Yap. 2015. ‘Did Obama care create new jobs?’—An analysis of Mitt Romney’s use of rhetorical questions in the 2012 US presidential election campaign. Text & Talk 35 (5): 643–668.Google Scholar
  35. Yip, Puichi. 2003. A study of the anti-face-threatening strategies of interviewers in adversarial radio news interviews in Hong Kong. Unpublished MA research project, Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  36. Yu, Ning. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Foong Ha Yap
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ariel Shuk-ling Chan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian Lap-ming Wai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SARChina
  2. 2.Department of Asian Languages and CulturesUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations