Home Interdiscursive strategies of metaphor-driven rhetoric in Romanian discourses on a political crisis
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Interdiscursive strategies of metaphor-driven rhetoric in Romanian discourses on a political crisis

  • Cornelia Ilie EMAIL logo and Ariadna Ştefănescu
Published/Copyright: April 9, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Summary

The aim of this article is to identify and examine the functions of interdiscursive strategies based on metaphor-driven rhetoric used in Romanian discourses on a political crisis. The corpus under investigation is made up of parliamentary declarations and press articles concerning the political crisis caused by the February 2014 government reshuffle in Romania, when PNL (the National Liberal Party) decided with an overwhelming majority to leave the ruling USL (the Social-Liberal Alliance) coalition. While both parliamentary statements and press articles are targeting multi-layered audiences, they display specific genre-related discourse features and contextualisations of metaphor-driven interdiscursivity patterns. On approaching this particular crisis, the intertextual commonalities of the two genres are grounded in crisis-related conceptualisations through metaphorical re-semantisations or metaphorical deconstructions that are based on rhetorical doxa (proverbs, key words, and culture-specific scenarios). At the same time, these metaphorical conceptualisations fulfil different pathos- and ethos-oriented interdiscursive functions depending on whether they are used for argumentation or counter-argumentation purposes, or for emphasising the personal styles and goals of individual politicians and/or media representatives.

References

Cristoiu, Ion. 2014. “În seara aceasta, Victor Ponta a fost victima consilierilor plătiţi”. Interview given on 25 February 2014 and published on the website realitatea.net. http://www.realitatea.net/ion-cristoiu_1387551.html#ixzz2uQS41h7g. (Accessed on 15 December 2015)Search in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, Paul (ed.). 2011. Criticism, crisis, and contemporary narrative: Textual horizons in an age of global risks. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203831021Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Bronwyn & Harré, Rom. 1990. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1). 44–63.10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.xSearch in Google Scholar

Doborovol’skij, Dimitrij & Piirrainen, Elisabeth. 2005/2009. Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. United Kingdom, North America, Japan, India, Malaysia & China: Emerald.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 1996. Blending as a central process in grammar. In A. Goldenberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 183–203. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Goatly, Andrew. 1998/1997. The language of metaphor. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203210000Search in Google Scholar

Harré, Rom & Luk van Langenhove (eds.). 1999. Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 1(2). 269–291.10.1075/jlp.2.1.05iliSearch in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2004. Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments: A rhetorical approach. In P. Bayley (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.10.02iliSearch in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In C. Ilie (ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.38.04iliSearch in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2015. Parliamentary discourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi201Search in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2016. Parliamentary discourse and deliberative rhetoric. In P. Ihalainen, C. Ilie & K. Palonen (eds.), Parliaments and parliamentarism: A comparative history of disputes about a European concept, 133–145. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.10.2307/j.ctvgs0b7n.13Search in Google Scholar

Koselleck, Reinhart. 1996. A response to comment on the geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. In H. Lehmann & M. Richter (eds.), The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, 59–70. Washington: German Historical Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Koselleck, Reinhart. 2002. The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts (Cultural memory in the present). Stanford: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503619104Search in Google Scholar

Koselleck, Reinhart & Richter, Michaela W. 2006. Crisis. Journal of the History of Ideas 67(2). 357–400.10.1353/jhi.2006.0013Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltan. 2006. Language, mind, and culture. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pleşu, Andrei. 2014. Jurnal de (in)actualităţi [“Diary of (non)-topical news”]. In Adevărul, 3 March 2014. http://adevarul.ro/news/politica/jurnal-inactualitati-1_531346bfc7b855ff56cd2559/index.html. (Accessed on 5 December 2015)Search in Google Scholar

Pora, Andreea. 2014. Cum şi cine îl spală pe Antonescu de păcate? In Revista 22, 25 February 2014. http://www.revista22.ro/cum-si-cine-l-spala-pe-antonescu-de-pacate-38418.html. (Accessed on 5 December 2015)Search in Google Scholar

Ştefănescu, Ariadna. 2011a. Conceptual metaphors and flexibility in political notions in use in 19th century Romanian parliamentary discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (eds.), Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Proceedings. June 29–July 2, 2010, 1828–1840. Amsterdam: Rozenberg & Sic Sat.Search in Google Scholar

Ştefănescu, Ariadna. 2011b. Dezbaterea parlamentară din perspectiva unei abordări etnometodologice: aspecte teoretice şi practici de comunicare. In R. Zafiu, C. Uşurelu & H. Bogdan Oprea (eds.), Limba română: ipostaze ale variaţiei lingvistice. Actele celui de-al 10-lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română (Bucureşti, 3–4 decembrie 2010) (II) Pragmatică şi stilistică, 289–303. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Search in Google Scholar

Ştefănescu, Ariadna. 2015. Analysing the rhetorical use of the epistemic marker Eu cred că (I think) in Romanian parliamentary discourse. In R. Săftoiu, I. Neagu & S. Măda (eds.), Persuasive games in political and professional dialogues, 101–141. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.26.06steSearch in Google Scholar

Turturică, Dan Cristian. 2014. “O nouă «marţe neagră» şi lecţiile maidanului”. In Revista 22, 25 February 2014. http://www.revista22.ro/o-noua-marte-neagra-si-lectiile-maidanului–38465.html. (Accessed on 15 December 2015)Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 1999. Appeal to popular opinion. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443). 583–632.10.1093/mind/111.443.583Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-4-9
Published in Print: 2016-4-1

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/slaw-2016-0008/html
Scroll to top button