Aufweichen, abbremsen, abschirmen – Wirtschaftsmetaphern zwischen politischer Abgrenzung und diskursiven Allgemeinplätzen

Q2 Arts and Humanities
David Barkhausen, Sven Bloching, Hannah Luisa Engeler
{"title":"Aufweichen, abbremsen, abschirmen – Wirtschaftsmetaphern zwischen politischer Abgrenzung und diskursiven Allgemeinplätzen","authors":"David Barkhausen, Sven Bloching, Hannah Luisa Engeler","doi":"10.1515/zfal-2023-2010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examines the use of metaphors in the German debate on European monetary and fiscal policy. Though the debates in this policy area garnered considerable interest among linguists, so far there is a gap concerning interdisciplinary comparative studies that examine metaphorical expressions in regard to their divergent political use. This study addresses said gap by posing two explorative research questions: Which metaphors shape the German political debate on European monetary and fiscal policy? And is there a relationship between the use of metaphors and the political perspective of the people using them? To examine these questions, we developed an innovative methodological triangulation that combines qualitative, hermeneutic metaphorical analyses with quantitative, data-driven approaches of corpus linguistics. By analyzing the communication of eleven political actors during three debates on Eurozone policy, we identify the most salient metaphors and compare their political usage. Our results show four types of metaphorical expressions which can be distinguished by their relative openness regarding political perspective and their respective referent. Thereby, this study firstly provides an important guide to understanding the debate at hand; secondly, sharpens the theoretical underpinnings of the comprehension of political metaphors as a whole; and thirdly, is a valuable contribution to the methodical study of metaphorical expressions in the field of applied linguistics.","PeriodicalId":53445,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2023-2010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This study examines the use of metaphors in the German debate on European monetary and fiscal policy. Though the debates in this policy area garnered considerable interest among linguists, so far there is a gap concerning interdisciplinary comparative studies that examine metaphorical expressions in regard to their divergent political use. This study addresses said gap by posing two explorative research questions: Which metaphors shape the German political debate on European monetary and fiscal policy? And is there a relationship between the use of metaphors and the political perspective of the people using them? To examine these questions, we developed an innovative methodological triangulation that combines qualitative, hermeneutic metaphorical analyses with quantitative, data-driven approaches of corpus linguistics. By analyzing the communication of eleven political actors during three debates on Eurozone policy, we identify the most salient metaphors and compare their political usage. Our results show four types of metaphorical expressions which can be distinguished by their relative openness regarding political perspective and their respective referent. Thereby, this study firstly provides an important guide to understanding the debate at hand; secondly, sharpens the theoretical underpinnings of the comprehension of political metaphors as a whole; and thirdly, is a valuable contribution to the methodical study of metaphorical expressions in the field of applied linguistics.
搅和击退,提供保护
摘要本研究考察了德国在欧洲货币和财政政策辩论中隐喻的使用。虽然这一政策领域的辩论引起了语言学家的极大兴趣,但迄今为止,在跨学科的比较研究中,关于隐喻表达的不同政治用途的研究还存在空白。本研究通过提出两个探索性研究问题来解决上述差距:哪些隐喻影响了德国关于欧洲货币和财政政策的政治辩论?隐喻的使用和使用它们的人的政治观点之间是否存在联系?为了研究这些问题,我们开发了一种创新的三角测量方法,将定性、解释学隐喻分析与语料库语言学的定量、数据驱动方法相结合。通过分析11位政治角色在三次欧元区政策辩论中的沟通,我们找出了最突出的隐喻,并比较了它们的政治用法。我们的研究结果显示了四种类型的隐喻表达,它们可以通过对政治观点和各自所指物的相对开放性来区分。因此,本研究首先为理解当前的争论提供了重要的指导;第二,强化对政治隐喻整体理解的理论基础;第三,对应用语言学领域隐喻表达的系统研究做出了有价值的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik (ZfAL) is the official publication of the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik (GAL) [Society for Applied Linguistics]. It is one of the most important German journals in this field and appears biannually. ZfAL seeks to represent the entire field of applied linguistics and to give impulses for the academic discourse in all of its subdisciplines (e.g. phonetics and speech science, lexicography, grammar and grammar theory, text linguistics and stylistics, discourse studies, media communication, specialized communication, sociolinguistics, language contact and multilingualism, intercultural communication and multilingual discourses, translation/interpretation studies, language didactics, media didactics and media competence, computer linguistics, among others). The emphasis of applied linguistics is on the transfer of linguistic methods and insights to the professional practice of those whose work concerns language, language use and communication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信