275

Notes

2 Designing a Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of Political Discourse

1. See Kirby (1997) and Johnson (1981) for a thorough account of metaphor in the Greek world. For more detail on Aristotle’s view of metaphor, see for instance Mahon (1999), Cameron (2003) and Semino (2008). See also Fahnestock (2000), Gross (2000), and Gross and Walzer (2000).

2. See for instance Johnson (1981, 4) and Kövecses (2002, vii). 3. The present work follows the convention of putting metaphor schemas in

small capitals. 4. See also Lakoff and Johnson (2003, 97): “a metaphor works when it satisfies

a purpose, namely, understanding an aspect of the concept.” 5. Jackendoff works on the connection between representation and the thing

it represents, with for instance the famous “In the picture, the girl with the green eyes has blue eyes” (Sweetser and Fauconnier 1996, 2). Nunberg estab-lishes that pragmatic functions link domains to one another. For instance, books and authors are linked by the function that associates each book to its author (Sweetser and Fauconnier 1996).This explains why the name of an author (trigger) can be used to refer to the book he wrote (target).

6. For more detail about MST, see Fauconnier (1994; 1997), Lakoff and Sweeter (1994), Fauconnier and Sweetser (1996), Croft and Cruse (2004, 33).

7. See also Sweetser and Fauconnier (1996, 5). 8. For more detail about the relevance of viewpoint in cognitive linguistics,

see Langacker (1987) and Talmy (1988). For a detailed discussion of mental spaces and evidentiality, see Sweetser (1987), Dancygier (1998, 87:112) and Aikhenvald (2006, 10).

9. The present chapter focuses on blending in cognitive linguistics; for the sake of brevity, other (earlier) uses of similar concepts in morphology and syntax, which Desagulier claims may be traced back to Jespersen (1909) and Bolinger (1961), are not detailed here. For more information on this issue, see Desagulier (2005).

10. For a detailed account of the process of blending, see among others Grady et al. (1999), Coulson and Oakley (2001), Fauconnier and Turner (2002), and Coulson (2006).

11 Grady et al. (1999, 110) give a list of counterpart relations, i.e., links between spaces, that includes: Identity, Role-Value, Similarity, Analogy, Metaphor and Metonymy.

12 For a detailed discussion of the issue of feature selection in BT, see Croft and Cruse (2004, 209).

13 Charaudeau defines discourse as social speech acts and focuses on ques-tions of cognition and values: “speech acts circulating in the social world, which testify to the prominent realms of thought and value at a given time in history.” (“actes de langage qui circulent dans le monde social et qui

276 Notes

eux-mêmes témoignent de ce que sont les univers de pensée et de valeurs qui s’imposent dans un temps historique donné” (Charaudeau 2005, 28)).

14. For a detailed account of the Hallidayan approach to language as social semi-otic, and how Critical Linguistics developed into CDA, see Koller (2003a, 37–44).

15. For a discussion of the two definitions of the word discourse in CDA, see Fairclough (2005b, 77).

16. See also Van Dijk (2003, 352). 17. Widdowson formulates serious criticisms against the framework, but he

nonetheless recognises the relevance and influence of CDA in academic research. “Norman Fairclough and I disagree about a lot of things. That much is obvious. But let me begin my comments by acknowledging the importance of his contribution to our thinking about language and society. He has brought to our attention a whole range of issues about the dialectical interplay of language and social life, not as matters for detached academic debate but as immediately implicated in practical and political affairs. He has alerted us to how language can be exploited in the manipulation of opinion and the abuse of power. His work is impressive in scope and pur-pose. It is highly stimulating for those who share his views, highly provoca-tive for those who do not, and is to be valued on both counts” (Widdowson 1996, 57).

18. Cognitive linguistics has also been applied fruitfully to a variety of related fields. This includes the study of literary texts (see for instance Lakoff and Turner 1989; Turner 1991; 1996; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Sweetser 2006; Semino 2008). Cognitive poetics has become a school of literary criti-cism relying on cognitive methods of analysis and most notably on CMT (Semino and Culpeper 2002; Stockwell 2002; Steen and Gavins 2003; Tsur 2008). Cameron (2003) concentrates on metaphors in educational discourse, while other researchers have taken an interest in the application of cognitive linguistics to language teaching (Charteris-Black 2000; Deignan 2008).

19. When he uses the term context, Van Dijk means to discuss the issue of the social context of discourse, and not of the lexical context/environment of a word or a sentence.

20. On Van Djik’s approach, see also Chilton (2003, 51). 21. This phenomenon has also been referred to as anchors – which are once

again quite similar to conceptual frames in the way they function in dis-course. “This is called an anchor because it is accepted by the persuadee and will be used to tie down new attitudes or behaviours. An anchor is a starting point for change because it represents something already widely accepted by potential persuadees. Anchors can be beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors, and group norms” (Jowett et al. 2006, 33).

22. The reason why Charteris-Black understands metaphor as a mostly con-scious phenomenon is because coming from the CDA framework, he is more concerned with the production of discourse and the strategies it implies, than with the unconscious mental processes of understanding everyday language. But he acknowledges the relation between metaphors and basic experiences and the construction of human values. According to him, the familiar character of what CMT refers to as the source domain contributes to the legitimacy of the speaker and lulls the unaware hearer into agreement.

Notes 277

23. “Rhetoric is, in Aristotle’s scheme of things, a narrowly circumscribed set of skills. These are easily abused; when, however, they are well used, they serve the best interest of the city-state and its citizens” (Gross 2000, 35).

24. Dirven et al. (2003, 1–2) define ideology “a system of beliefs and values based on a set of cognitive models, i.e., mental representations – partly linguistic, partly non-linguistic – of recurrent phenomena and their inter-pretations in culture and society.” From a socio-cognitive point of view, it may also be understood as “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group” (Van Dijk 1998, 8).

25. See also Goatly (2002; 2007). 26. For more studies of the metaphors of war in political discourse, see for

instance Lakoff (1991, 2001); Chilton (1995); Chilton and Lakoff (1995) and other papers in Schäffner and Wenden (1995).

27. For a detailed account of how Talmy’s force dynamics can be applied to CDA, see Hart (2010a; 2010b).

28. See also Stefanowitsch (2006a) for a similar argument. 29. See Meyer (2002, 102) for a similar argument. 30. See the French lexicométrie school of discourse analysis, with for instance

Lafon (1984), Mayaffre (2000, 2004, 2007), Labbé and Monière (2003) and Fiala (2007).

31. For similar comments, see Baker (2006, 68). See Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003) and Gries and Stefanowitsch (2004) for a detailed account of col-lostructional analysis, which aims at measuring what types of constructions frequently occur with a given word.

32. See Fairclough (2000, 165 fn 19) for a detailed description of the corpus data used in the book.

33. See Koller and Davidson (2008) for an illustration of this new trend. In their paper on social exclusion, they revisit Fairclough’s remark that the verb tackle is frequently used by new Labour in connection with social issues such as exclusion or poverty, in order to present them as conditions rather than processes (Fairclough 2000, 55–56).

34. Semino (2008) gives the example of A PURPOSEFUL LIFE IS A BUSINESS, which Lakoff (1993) presents as belonging to the same pair (or “dual”) as LIFE IS A JOURNEY.

35. As defined by Croft and Cruse (2004). 36. See note 56 in the current chapter for a definition of clusters – also known

as bundles, or n-grams. 37. See also McNeill (1992), Cienki (1998; 2008), and Sweetser (2007). 38. See also Deignan (1999; 2006) and Cameron (2003) for discussions on the

link between grammar and linguistic metaphors. 39. The name Pragglejaz derives from the first letter of the first names of the ten

original members of the group: Peter Crisp, Ray Gibbs, Alan Cienki, Graham Low, Gerard Steen, Lynne Cameron, Elena Semino, Joe Grady, Alice Deignan, and Zoltan Kövecses.

40. See also Koller and Semino (2009); Semino and Koller (2009); Semino (2010). 41. See also Skorczynska and Piqué-Angordans (2005); Skorczynska and Deignan

(2006, 100); Skorczynska (2010). 42. For more detail about the issue, see Deignan (2008, 174–183), Semino (2008,

200) and Stefanowitsch (2006b).

278 Notes

43. For more detail on the issue, see Labbé and Monière (2003, 7). 44. These remarks on genre and register also apply to the two secondary corpora

under analysis, namely CP and LP. 45. While BNCw was used as a control in all the analyses presented in the

following chapters, it is only explicitly mentioned in data tables when it yielded relevant information.

46. Given that all the speakers represented in my political corpora are men, the singular pronoun he is used to refer to the speaker in the following chapters. This should not be taken as a sign that this study condones masculine hegemony in the field of politics, or that its conclusions could not apply to female political speakers as well.

47. For detailed descriptions and a discussion of concordance tables, concord-ance analysis and collocations, see Sinclair (1991), Baker (2006, 92–93), and Archer (2009a). For a detailed discussion of frequency lists, see Rayson (2008).

48. For remarks on the evolution of the concept of keyness, see Baker (2004, 346).

49. For remarks on the relevance of negative keywords in a corpus analysis, see for instance Baker (2006, 19).

50. Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System. 51. See Rayson (2003, 66) for a detailed description of the entire tagset. 52. UCREL Semantic Analysis System. 53. The following studies have notably shown the relevance of using semantic

tags in their analysis, see for instance Archer et al. (2009), Baker (2009), and Koller et al. (2008).

54. See also Johnson, Culpeper and Suhr (2003), Archer (2009b) and Baker (2009). 55. Calculation and visual representation of the dispersion of a given word

throughout the data can indicate the degree to which its occurrences are uniformly spread throughout the data. See Lafon (1984, 75), Rayson (2003, 36) and Baker (2006, 142–143).

56. An n-gram is an extended form of collocation that consists of “an unbro-ken sequence of n words” (Sinclair 2004, 9). See also Biber et al. (1998) and Partington and Morley (2004, 183).

57. For accounts of additional statistical methods such as correspondence analysis and cluster analysis see Lebart and Salem (1994), Mayaffre (2000), Angemüller (2007), Fiala (2007), and Johnson (2008).

58. For an alternative explanation using the Bonferroni correction, see Meyer (2002, 129).

59. See also Rayson (2003, 97). 60. Even with a very low cut-off point for p-values, the fact that a hypothesis has

been accepted because of a significant result does not mean that it has been proven for sure; there is still a small probability (p) that “the observed result has come about although the null hypothesis is correct – p is small enough to warrant accepting the alternative hypothesis, but not to prove it” (Gries 2009, 31). These remarks notably apply to the process of keyness analysis provided by WMatrix in the current project.

61. See Rayson (2003, 62–63) for a detailed calculation of G2. See also Dunning (1993, 65–66), Meyer (2002, 132), and Rayson (2003, 133).

Notes 279

62. A code yielding p-values for each LL score will soon be added to WMatrix, thus allowing for more precision in the determination of test significance (Rayson, personal communication).

63. For a detailed discussion of MI, see Manning and Schütze (1999, 177–180). 64. Given the amount of data available for statistical testing, a division into

three categories instead of two would have been counterproductive as it would have reduced the number of occurrences representative of each.

Part I The New Labour Identity

1. “On a du mal à accepter qu’en démocratie le peuple vote en faveur d’un homme ou d’une femme politique, davantage en raison de son image et des quelques phrases slogans qu’il ou elle profère que pour son programme politique”.

3 What’s in a Name? Party Names and Political Principles

1. ns: not significant. 2. “un singulier totalisant: un singulier qui suggère la multiplicité, mais qui

doit avant tout souligner l’unité de la multiplicité qu’il désigne.” 3. This remark lines up with the higher sense of identity for the party hypoth-

esized above. 4. A retronym is a new name for a concept or an object, which is created so as

to distinguish its original form from new variants of the referent type. The phrase silent movie for instance only came into existence after the invention of movies with sound tracks, since, before then, the noun movie would have necessarily referred to a silent movie. Retronyms often involve the introduc-tion of an adjective or a modifier to the original expression, as is the case for Old Labour.

5. This phenomenon is dealt with at length in the second part of this chapter (see p. 60).

6. While this feature leads to some skewing of the final results, it can also yield fine-grained analyses, as shown in the following pages.

7. Throughout the present book, the non-capitalised version is used to refer to all occurrences of the phrase, except for specific sentence-initial occurrences or when a distinction between the two versions is explicitly made in the analysis.

8. The themes of change and newness in new Labour discourse are thoroughly analysed in Chapter 5.

9. For a detailed analysis of political marketing strategies, see Ingram and Lees-Marshment (2002).

10. While the term law on its own occurs significantly more often in CP than in NL, the collocation “rule/law” is significant in all three corpora, with respective LL scores of 73.22, 151.33 and 217.70 (p < 1e – 4) for NL, LP and CP.

11. The phrase Middle England refers to a predominantly middle-class group inside British society living mainly in suburban and rural England. The new

280 Notes

Labour strategist Philip Gould described them as “ordinary people with sub-urban dreams who worked hard to improve their homes and their lives; to get gradually better cars, washing machines and televisions; to go on holiday in Spain rather than Bournemouth” (quoted in Reeves 2007).

4 Reclaiming Ground on the National Scene – Fighting Stereotypes

1. Putnam’s stereotypes are theoretically closer to Lakoff’s ICMs (Lakoff 1987, 169). 2. All poster images in the Conservative Party Archive are available on the

website of the Bodleian Library (Oxford University): http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8081/BrowserInsight/BrowserInsight?cmd=start&un= cpaposters&pw=cpaposters

3. In 1999, it was voted “Poster of the Century” by the magazine Campaign. 4. The treatment of war in new Labour discourse is considered as less cen-

tral to the issue of political stereotypes than the new Labour position on crime – as such it will not be dealt with in more detail in the present study, despite the many potentialities of the topic itself. For more information on new Labour and its stance on war and terrorism, see for instance Dumbrell (2006), O’Driscoll (2006), Schafer and Walker (2006), Potter and Lloyd (2005), Little and Wickham-Jones (2000) and Vickers (2000). For a detailed analysis of the “war on terror” narrative, see Hodges (2008a; 2008b; 2011). See also Hodges and Nilep (2007).

5. An Anti Social Behaviour Order is issued as a result of “conduct which caused or was likely to cause harm, harassment, alarm or distress, to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the Defendant,” Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, downloaded from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents (accessed 19/03/2011).

6. While the term subsidy refers exclusively to government or public spending, funding may be provided by any other type of organisation and may as such be considered more general a term (OAD 2009).

7. Occurrences of Common Market were weeded out of the concordance list before the contextual analysis, as they refer to the question of Europe and are as such too specific to be taken into account here.

8. WMatrix analyses partnership_with as a multi-word expression and treats it as a separate word from partnership. Table 4.10 compiles data for partnership, partnerships and partnership_with into one entry.

9. See Chapter 5 for a detailed analysis of the Third Way strategy. 10. As established in Chapter 2, lexical realisations of metaphors were not con-

sidered as essential to the discussion of their conceptual nature by founders of CMT. Interest in lexical realisations of conceptual metaphors has been renewed in more recent work on the subject. See for instance Semino (2008) and the Pragglejaz group (2007).

11. While partner is derived from the Middle English word parcener meaning “joint heir,” its business meaning was first attested in the 17th century (OAD, 2009). Similarly in the King James Bible, various partners are referred

Notes 281

to: “business comrades (Luke 5:10); fellow-worshippers (1 Cor. 10:18); demon-worshippers (1 Cor. 10:20); partners in Christ’s sufferings (2 Cor. 1:7); gospel ministry (2 Cor. 8:23; Phlm. 17); suffering in persecution (Heb. 10:33)” (Renn 2005, 377).

12. See also Edwards and Valenzano (2007) for an additional interpretation of partnership within the realm of politics.

13. Example (65) is reproduced here: “I condemn the violence of despair; I con-demn the violence of long-term unemployment; I condemn the violence of loneliness, decay, ugliness, and fear […] I condemn the violence done to hope, the violence done to talent, the violence done to family security and family unity. I condemn violence, I abominate violence, I damn violence – all violence. All violence, without fear or favour. That’s what I do, and that is what makes me different from Margaret Thatcher” (LP).

14. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/jan/30/engagements. 15. “By occupying the centre ground, by modernising, by reaching out beyond

our activists, we helped turn the Tories into a replica of what we used to be. A narrow base. Obsessed about the wrong things. Old fashioned. In retreat” (NL).

Part II New Labour and the Discourse of Change

1. “[l]’appel au changement et même au véritable changement ne produit plus d’effet, passé par la bouche de tant de présidentiables.”

2. “l’adjectif ‘nouveau, nouvelle’ est l’un des moins marqueurs qui soit. Les discours, de droite comme de gauche, en sont farcis en permanence et, du coup, rien n’est plus banal qu’un usage que l’on s’imaginait renforçatif et caractérisant.”

3. For preliminary analyses connected to the findings in Chapter 5, see L’Hôte and Lemmens (2009).

4. For preliminary analyses connected to the findings in Chapter 6, see L’Hôte (2010b).

5. One occurrence of the word in NL was excluded from the count on the grounds that it referred to currency exchange with the French expression “bureau de change.”

5 Can Things Only Get Better? Internal Change in New Labour Discourse

1. Some words included in A2.1+ are also used in mentions of external change in discourse, as detailed in Chapte r 6.

2. See the general conclusion of this volume (p. 330) for a more detailed discus-sion of this specific issue.

3. “[i]l n’y a pas de pouvoir symbolique sans une symbolique du pouvoir […] Tout un aspect du langage autorisé, de sa rhétorique, de sa syntaxe, de son lexique, de sa prononciation même, n’a d’autre raison d’être que de rappeler l’autorité de son auteur et la confiance qu’il exige” (Bourdieu 2001, 112).

4. See similar mappings for the analysis of My karma ran over my dogma in Coulson and Oakley (2001).

282 Notes

5. “d’une part la constitution d’une figure terrifiante de monstre politique, d’autre part l’érection de sa propre statue de sauveur de la patrie” (Cuny-Le Callet 2003, 31). For more analyses of Ciceronian rhetoric, see also Cuny-Le Callet (2003, 203).

6. While Google cannot be considered a reliable source for corpus analysis, it does nonetheless provide interesting results as far as this combination of metaphors is concerned. A search for “the more the better” gets 17,400,000 hits, while a search for “the more the worse” only gets 74,600 and “the less the better” 3,540,000. Comparable differences occur with searches for “the more * the better” (1,290,000,000 hits) vs. “the more * the worse” (146,000,000 hits) and “the less * the better” (587,000,000 hits) (Lemmens, personal communication) (accessed 24/03/2014).

7. For a detailed description of the political aspects of the concept, see Giddens (1999).

8. In this example, the leader of the party/the country also metonymically stands for the party/the country.

6 External Change and Globalisation in New Labour Discourse

1. Bunting M., the Guardian, 29/11/99, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/29/wto.comment/print (accessed 24/03/14).

2. “The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.” (http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eraindependence/p/wind_of_change2.htm, accessed 25/03/2014).

3. See Delaney and Emanatian (1999) on natural metaphors in US legal cov-enants connected to racial segregation in the 1930s.

4. See also L’Hôte (2010b).

7 Labour after Blair

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9yq (accessed 25/04/2014). 2. While there is a slight chronological overlap with NL, L07 does not include

Gordon Brown’s 2007 Party Conference Speech, which is already part of NL. This overlap is intentional and based on the fact that 2007 is a key transi-tional year in the evolution of the British political scene.

3. While there is a slight chronological overlap with CP, C07 does not include David Cameron’s 2007 Party Conference Speech, which is already part of CP.

4. See Appendix 1 for a detailed list of the speeches included in these two new sub-corpora.

5. Methodology remains unchanged between previous chapters and this one. Quantitative results are once again obtained with WMatrix (Rayson 2009).

6. See for instance Ralph Miliband (1994; 1961). 7. For a detailed discussion of the different senses of freedom in American

political discourse, see Lakoff (2006).

Notes 283

8. After the global financial crisis, all three British parties agreed on the goal of cutting the deficit through a reduction of public spending. But they still differed greatly in their ideas about the role of the state and its relationship with financial markets. According to Smith (2010, 818), “Labour’s answer to the crisis was increasingly a traditional Keynesian and social democratic response whilst the Conservatives raised the prospect of the ‘big society’ as a mechanism for reducing the size of the state.”

9. big government (LL = 107.95, p < 1e – 4) and government big (LL = 18.29, p < 1e – 4) are two significant collocations in C07.

10. In Figure 7.3, I adopt the argument put forward by Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (2003) that all metonymies may be interpreted as either part for whole or whole for part.

11. Among others, Nanny Knows Best was the title of the UK 1980s TV series, and Father Knows Best was the title of a US 1950s radio show.

12. For a discussion of the metaphor of the broken society, see section 7.3.1 of this chapter.

13. Significant collocates in L07: crime (LL = 94.57, p < 1e – 4), carrying (LL = 45.13, p < 1e – 4) and gun (LL = 38.37, p < 1e – 4).

14. Significant collocate in L07: CCTV (LL = 35.52, p < 1e – 4). 15. Bad and social for C07, social and Orders for NL, social, bad and good for CP,

and no significant collocate for LP. 16. For a detailed discussion of the relevance of the global crisis in the evolution

of both parties’ framing of change, see section 7.3 this chapter. 17. See http://mydavidcameron.com/about (accessed 13/04/14). The website’s

homepage claims 90,000 unique visitors in its first two weeks of existence. It won the Orange Digital Election Award for “Funniest Use of Digital Media.”

18. Quoted from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/02/david-cam-eron-gene-hunt-labour-poster (accessed 13/04/14).

19. For endless collections of non-political memes, see websites like https://imgur.com/, http://www.reddit.com/, https://knowyourmeme.com, or https://9gag.com (accessed 13/04/14).

20. On Twitter, see popular hashtags like #ivenevervotedtory, #peopleposters or #torybingo for additional examples of parodies gone viral.

21. See http://mydavidcameron.com/about/not-oasis for a detailed argument on the short life span of Internet political parodies (accessed 13/04/14).

22. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man (accessed 13/04/14).

23. The newspaper claims that Olaf Priol and Step Outside Posh Boy were two of the most popular topics on Twitter on April 1st 2010 (see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/apr/01/general-election-2010-gordon-brown, accessed 13/04/14).

24. https://www.flickr.com/groups/poshboy/ (accessed 13/04/14). 25. https://www.flickr.com/photos/quisnovus/4492414891/in/pool-poshboy

(accessed 29/04/14). 26. https://www.flickr.com/photos/quisnovus/4492453463/in/pool-poshboy

(accessed 29/04/14). 27. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gracieuxroyall/4543637105/in/pool-posh-

boy (accessed 29/04/14). 28. For a detailed discussion of change in the 2010 General Election, see section

7.3 of this chapter.

284 Notes

29. See p. 184 in Chapter 5 for a detailed analysis of the Tories are Zombies Election Poster.

30. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/nuke-it-from-orbit (accessed 24/04/2014). 31. The broadcast is available at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=2p2bmyspD4s (accessed 14/04/14). 32. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgt7 (accessed 25/04/14). 33. For more detail on face-saving strategies and techniques for non-apologetic

apologies, see among others Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987), and Zhang (2001).

285

Bibliography

Aarts, Bas. 2001. “Corpus Linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments.” In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, 5–13. Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Alexander, Jeffrey C., and Piotr Sztompka. 1990. Rethinking Progress: Movements,

Forces, and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century. London: Unwin Hyman.Amossy, Ruth. 1991. Les Idées Reçues. Sémiologie Du Stéréotype. Nathan Université.Angemüller, Johannes. 2007. “L’analyse Du Discours En Europe.” In Analyse

Du Discours et Sciences Humaines et Sociales, edited by Simone Bonnafous and Malika Temmar, 178. Editions Ophrys.

Anholt, Simon, and Jeremy Hildreth. 2005. Brand America: The Mother of All Brands. Cyan Communications.

Archer, Dawn. 2009a. “Does Frequency Really Matter?” In What’s in a Word-List?: Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, edited by Dawn Archer. Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities. Farnham, England: Ashgate Ltd.

———, ed. 2009b. What’s in a Word-List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction. 1 vols. Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities. Farnham, England: Ashgate Ltd.

Archer, Dawn, Jonathan Culpeper, and Paul Rayson. 2009. “Love – ‘a familiar or a devil’? an Exploration of Key Domains in Shakespeare’s Comedies and Tragedies.” In What’s in a Word-List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, edited by Dawn Archer. Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities. Farnham, England: Ashgate Ltd.

Archer, Dawn, Andrew Wilson, and Paul Rayson. 2002. “Introduction to the USAS Category System.” University of Lancaster. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas%20guide.pdf.

Aristotle. 350AD. “Rhetoric.” Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. The Internet Classics Archive, Massachussetts Institute of Technology. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html.

Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baker, Paul. 2004. “Querying Keywords: Questions of Difference, Frequency, and Sense in Keywords Analysis.” Journal of English Linguistics 32 (4): 346–59.

———. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. Continuum Discourse Series. London: Continuum.

———. 2009. “‘The question is, how cruel is it?’ Keywords, Fox Hunting and the House of Commons.” In What’s in a Word-List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, edited by Dawn Archer. Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities. Farnham: Ashgate Ltd.

Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyzanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. 2008. “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine

286 Bibliography

Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse & Society 19 (3): 273–306.

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barthes, Roland. 1957. Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.———. 1964. “Rhétorique de l’Image.” Communications 4: 40–51.Beech, Matt. 2006. The Political Philosophy of New Labour. London: Tauris

Academic Studies.Berber-Sardinha, Tony. 2002. “Metaphor in Corpora: A Corpus-Driven Analysis

of Dissertations.” In. http://www2.lael.pucsp.br/~tony/.Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor, and Thomas A. Upton. 2007. Discourse on the

Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Black, Max. 1954. “Metaphor.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55. New Series: 273–94.

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1961. “Syntactic Blends and Other Matters.” Language 37 (3): 366–81.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Langage et Pouvoir Symbolique. Paris: Seuil.Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in

Language Usage. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brownlee, Ian. 1998. “New Labour: New Penology? Punitive Rhetoric and the Limits of Managerialism in Criminal Justice Policy.” Journal of Law and Society 25 (3): 313–35.

Brugman, Claudia Marlea. 1988. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.

Burman, Erica, and Ian Parker. 1993. “Against Discursive Imperialism, Empiricism and Constructionalism: Thirty-Two Problems with Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action, edited by Erica Burman and Ian Parker, 155–72. London: Routledge.

Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711–33.

Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Cameron, Lynne, and Alice Deignan. 2003. “Combining Large and Small Corpora to Investigate Tuning Devices around Metaphor in Spoken Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (3): 149–60.

Cameron, Lynne, and Juurd Stelma. 2004. “Metaphor Clusters in Discourse.” Journal of Applied Linguistcs 1 (2). http://www.equinoxjournals.com/JAL/article/view/1441.

Chadwick, Andrew, and Richard Heffernan. 2003. “The New Labour Phenomenon.” In The New Labour Reader, edited by Andrew Chadwick and Richard Heffernan, 1–25. Polity Press.

Charaudeau, Patrick. 2005. Le Discours Politique: Les Masques Du Pouvoir. Vuibert.Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2000. “Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching in ESP

Economics.” English for Specifi c Purposes 19 (2): 149–65.

Bibliography 287

———. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2006. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2012. “Comparative Keyword Analysis and Leadership Communication: Tony Blair – A Study of Rhetorical Style.” In Comparative Political Leadership, edited by Ludger Helms, 142–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/19286/.

Chilton, Paul. 1995. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. Peter Lang.

———. 2003. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Routledge.Chilton, Paul, and Mikhail Ilyin. 1993. “Metaphor in Political Discourse: The

Case of the ‘Common European House.’” Discourse & Society 4 (1): 7–31. Chilton, Paul, and Lakoff. 1995. “Foreign Policy by Metaphor.” In Language and

Peace, edited by Christina Schäffner and Anita Wenden. Aldershot, Hants: Dartmouth.

Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. 2000. Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Cienki, Alan. 1998. “Metaphoric Gestures and Some of Their Relations to Verbal Metaphorical Expressions.” In Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, edited by Jean-Pierre Koenig. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

———. 2005. “Metaphor in the ‘Strict Father’ and ‘Nurturant Parent’ Cognitive Models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study.” Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 279–312.

———. 2008. “Why Study Metaphor and Gesture?” In Metaphor and Gesture, edited by Alan Cienki and Cornelia Müller, 3:5–26. Gesture Studies, 1874–6829. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. “Domains and Image Schemas.” Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1): 1–31.

Clohesy, Anthony M. 2002. “New Labour Ideology: Assessing the Post-Marxist Critique.” Journal of Political Ideologies 7 (1): 39–56.

Coates, David. 2001. “Capitalist Models and Social Democracy: The Case of New Labour.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 3 (3): 284–307.

Colin Campbell, and Jonathan Simpson-Bint. 2010. Brand Narrative: How Story Gives Meaning to Marketing. Sea Bright, NJ: Seabright Publishing.

Corts, Daniel, and Kristina Meyers. 2002. “Conceptual Clusters in Figurative Language Production.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 391–408.

Coulson, Seana. 2006. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley. 2001. “Blending Basics.” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3–4): 175–96.

———. 2006. “Purple Persuasion: Conceptual Blending and Deliberative Rhetoric.” In Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across Languages, Fields and Philosophical Boundaries, edited by June Luchjenbroers. Vol. 15. Human Cognitive Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuny-Le Callet, Blandine. 2003. “Un Aspect Du Thème de La Monstruosité Morale Dans La Rhétorique Cicéronienne: Le Monstre Comme Prodige et

288 Bibliography

Causeur de Prodiges.” In Argumentation et Discours Politique: Antiquité Grecque et Latine, Révolution Française, Monde Contemporain, edited by Simone Bonnafous, Pierre Chiron, Dominique Ducard, and Carlos Lévy. PU Rennes.

Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge, and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Vol. 87. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2002. “Mental Space Embeddings, Counterfactuality, and the Use of Unless.” English Language and Linguistics 6 (02): 347–77.

Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser. 1997. “Then in Conditional Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 8 (2): 109–36.

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfi sh Gene. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Deignan, Alice. 1999. “Corpus-Based Research into Metaphor.” In Researching and Applying Metaphor, edited by Graham Low and Lynne Cameron, 177–99. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2006. “The Grammar of Linguistic Metaphors.” In Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, edited by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Thomas Gries. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs ; 171. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

———. 2008. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Delaney, David, and Michele Emanatian. 1999. “‘Unnatural Barriers’: Why

Metaphor Matters (or, Linguistics Meets the Geopolitics of Law).” In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, edited by Leon G. De Stadler and Christoph Eyrich, 331–46. Walter de Gruyter.

Desagulier, Guillaume. 2005. “Modélisation Cognitive de La Variation et Du Changement Linguistiques: Étude de Quelques Cas de Constructions Émergentes En Anglais Contemporain.” Unpublished PhD disserta-tion, Université Bordeaux 3. www.univ-paris8.fr/desagulier/home/THESE_DESAGULIER.pdf.

Dirven, René, Roslyn M Frank, and Martin Pütz. 2003. Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings. Cognitive Linguistics Research ; 24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Driver, Stephen, and Luke Martell, eds 2002. Blair’s Britain. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Dumbrell, J. 2006. “Working with Allies: The United States, the United Kingdom, and the War on Terror.” Politics & Policy 34 (2): 452–72.

Dunmire, Patricia L. 2005. “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (4): 481–513.

Dunning, Ted. 1993. “Accurate Methods for the Statistics of Surprise and Coincidence.” Computational Linguistics 19 (1): 61–74.

Edwards, Jason A., and Joseph M. Valenzano. 2007. “Bill Clinton’s ‘New Partnership’ Anecdote: Toward a Post-Cold War Foreign Policy Rhetoric.” Journal of Language and Politics 6 (3): 303–25.

Ericson, Richard E. 1991. “The Classical Soviet-Type Economy: Nature of the System and Implications for Reform.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (4): 11–27.

Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Bibliography 289

Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2000. “Aristotle and Theories of Figuration.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Fairclough, Norman. 1993a. “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 133–168.

———. 1993b. Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.———. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.———. 2000. New Labour, New Language? 1st ed. London: Routledge.———. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd Revised edition. London: Longman.———. 2005a. “Blair’s Contribution to Elaborating a New ‘doctrine of

International Community’.” Journal of Language and Politics 4: 41–63.———. 2005b. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Marges Linguistiques 9: 76–94.———. 2006. Language and Globalization. 1st ed. Routledge.Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural

Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser, eds 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar.

Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Fiala, Pierre. 2007. “L’analyse Du Discours Politique: Analyse de Contenu, Statistique Lexicale, Approche Sémantico-Énonciative.” In Analyse Du Discours et Sciences Humaines et Sociales, edited by Simone Bonnafous and Malika Temmar. Editions OPHRYS.

Fillmore, Charles. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, edited by SICOL 1981: Seoul, Korea. Seoul, Korea: Hanshin

Finlayson, Alan. 2007. “From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9 (4): 545–63.

Finlayson, Alan, and James Martin. 2008. “‘It Ain’t What You Say…’: British Political Studies and the Analysis of Speech and Rhetoric.” British Politics 3 (4): 445–64.

Flowerdew, J. 1997. “The Discourse of Colonial Withdrawal: A Case Study in the Creation of Mythic Discourse.” Discourse & Society 8 (4): 453–77.

Fowler, Roger. 1996. “On Critical Linguistics.” In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 3–14. London: Routledge.

Frank, Andre Gunder. 1998. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Friel, Brian. 1981. Translations. London: Faber & Faber.Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Gallie, W. B. 1955. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian

Society 56 (January). New Series: 167–98.Gibbs, Raymond W. 2000. “Making Good Psychology out of Blending Theory.”

Cognitive Linguistics 11: 347–58.

290 Bibliography

Gibson, Janine. 1999. “Tory Advert Rated Poster of the Century.” The Guardian, October 16. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/1999/oct/16/advertising.mondaymediasection.

Giddens, Anthony. 1999. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Glasman, Maurice. 2010. “Society Not State: The Challenge of the Big Society.” Public Policy Research 17 (2): 59–63.

Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.———. 2002. “Conflicting Metaphors in the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region Educational Reform Proposals.” Metaphor and Symbol 17 (4): 263. ———. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual; Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. [1st] ed.

Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.———. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

Northeastern University Press. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Gordon, Ian H. 1998. Relationship Marketing: New Strategies, Techniques and

Technologies to Win the Customers You Want and Keep Them Forever. Toronto: Wiley.Gould, Bryan. 1999. “The Long Retreat from Principle.” New Statesman, January

29. http://www.newstatesman.com/199901290039.Gould, Philip. 1998. “Why Labour Won.” In Political Communications: Why

Labour Won the General Election of 1997, edited by Ivor Crewe, Brian Gosschalk, and John Bartle, 3–11. London: Frank Cass.

———. 1999. The Unfi nished Revolution: How the Modernisers Saved the Labour Party. New edition. Abacus.

Grady, Joseph. 1997. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4): 267–90.

Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson. 1999. “Conceptual Blending and Metaphor.” In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997, edited by Raymond W Gibbs and Gerard Steen, 101–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gries, Stefan Thomas, and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on `alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129.

Gross, Alan. 2000. “What Aristotle Meant by Rhetoric.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gross, Alan G, and Arthur E Walzer, eds 2000. Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Grossman, Gregory. 1994. “What Was ? Is, Will Be ? The Command Economy?” MOCT-MOST: Economic Policy in Transitional Economies 4 (1): 5–22.

Hale, David George. 1971. The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Literature. De Proprietatibus Litterarum. Series Maior, 9. The Hague: Mouton.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bibliography 291

Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hart, Christopher. 2010a. “Moving beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: A Case Study in Force Dynamics.” In Vol. Book of abstracts. University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield. http://uk-clc3.org/materials.htm.

———. 2010b. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Hattersley, Roy. 2001. “It’s No Longer My Party.” The Observer, June 24. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/24/labour2001to2005.news.

Hay, Colin. 2003. “The Political Economy of New Labour.” In The New Labour Reader, edited by Andrew Chadwick and Richard Heffernan, 59–65. Polity Press.

Heffernan, Richard. 2000. New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Held, David. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Heron, E., and P. Dwyer. 1999. “Doing the Right Thing: Labour’s Attempt to Forge a New Welfare Deal between the Individual and the State.” Social Policy & Administration 33 (1): 91–104.

Higgins, Mark. 1998. “Review: Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t by George Lakoff.” Language 74 (2): 425–26.

Hodges, Adam. 2008a. “The Dialogic Emergence of ‘Truth’ in Politics: Reproduction and Subversion of the ‘War on Terror’ Discourse.” Colorado Research in Linguistics 21: 1–12.

———. 2008b. “The ‘War on Terror’ Narrative: The (inter)textual Construction and Contestation of Socio-Political Reality.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Colorado.

———. 2011. The War on Terror Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, USA.

Hodges, Adam, and Chad Nilep. 2007. Discourse, War and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” Psychiatry 19: 215–29.

Hutton, Will. 1996. The State We’re in. London: Vintage.Ingham, Bernard. 2003. The Wages of Spin. London: John Murray.Ingram, Peter, and Jennifer Lees-Marshment. 2002. “The Anglicisation of

Political Marketing: How Blair ‘out-Marketed’ Clinton.” Journal of Public Affairs 2 (2): 44–56.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. “On Belief-Contexts.” Linguistic Inquiry 6 (1): 53–93.Jespersen, Otto. 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles.

Heidelberg: C. Winter.Johnson, Keith. 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Johnson, Mark. 1981. “Metaphor in the Philosophical Tradition.” In Philosophical

Perspectives on Metaphor, edited by Mark Johnson, 3–47. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

292 Bibliography

Johnson, Sally, Jonathan Culpeper, and Stephanie Suhr. 2003. “From ‘Politically Correct Councillors’ to ‘Blairite Nonsense’: Discourses of ‘Political Correctness’ in Three British Newspapers.” Discourse & Society 14 (1): 29–47.

Jowett, Garth and Victoria O’Donnell. 2006. Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. Les Actes de Langage Dans Le Discours: Théorie et Fonctionnement. Paris: Nathan.

Kessler, Brett. 2001. The Signifi cance of Word Lists. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Kirby, John T. 1997. “Aristotle on Metaphor.” American Journal of Philology 118 (4): 517–54.

Kisby, Ben. 2010. “The Big Society: Power to the People?” The Political Quarterly 81 (4): 484–91.

Koller, Veronika. 2003a. “Metaphor Clusters in Business Media Discourse: A Social Cognition Approach.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Vienna.

———. 2003b. “Metaphor Clusters, Metaphor Chains: Analyzing the Multifunctionality of Metaphor in Text.” Metaphorik. de 5. http://metaphorik.de/05/koller.htm.

———. 2004a. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Clinical Cognitive Study. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2004b. “Businesswomen and War metaphors: ‘Possessive, Jealous and Pugnacious’?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (1): 3–22.

———. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199–224.

———. 2009. “Missions and Empires: Religious and Political Metaphors in Corporate Discourse.” In Metaphor and discourse, ed. Andreas Musolff and Jörg Zinken, 116–134. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Koller, Veronika, and Paul Davidson. 2008. “Social Exclusion as Conceptual and Grammatical Metaphor: A Cross-Genre Study of British Policy-Making.” Discourse & Society 19 (3): 307–331.

Koller, Veronika, A. Hardie, Paul Rayson, and Elena Semino. 2008. “Using a Semantic Annotation Tool for the Analysis of Metaphor in Discourse.” Metaphorik. de 15.

Koller, Veronika, and Elena Semino. 2009. “Metaphor, Politics and Gender: A Case Study from Germany.” In Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited by Kathleen Ahrens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1994. “Tocqueville’s Passionate ‘Beast’: A Linguistic Analysis of The Concept of American Democracy.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9 (2): 113.

———. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.L’Hôte, Emilie. 2010a. “Du Progrès Perpétuel À La Société Brisée. La Rhétorique

Du Changement de Tony Blair À David Cameron.” La Vie Des Idées. http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Du-progres-perpetuel-a-la-societe.html.

———. 2010b. “New Labour and Globalization: Globalist Discourse with a Twist?” Discourse & Society 21 (4): 355–376.

———. 2013. “Breaking up Britain? Métaphores et Discours Sur La Dévolution Au Royaume Uni.” In Derrière Les Mots… Approches Politiques et Linguistiques Des Relations Communautaires En Belgique, edited by Julien Perrez and Min Reuchamps. Louvain la Neuve: Academia Bruylant.

L’Hôte, Emilie, and Maarten Lemmens. 2009. “Reframing Treason: Metaphors of Change and Progress in New Labour Discourse.” CogniTextes, Volume 3. http://cognitextes.revues.org/248.

Bibliography 293

Labbé, Dominique. 1977. Le Discours Communiste. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.

Labbé, Dominique, and Denis Monière. 2003. Le Discours Gouvernemental: Canada, Québec, France, 1945–2000. Paris: Honoré Champion.

Laclau, Ernesto. 2000. “Identity and Hegemony: The Role of Universality in the Constitution of Political Logic.” In Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, edited by Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek, 44–89. Phronesis. London: Verso.

Lafon, Pierre. 1984. Dépouillements et Statistiques En Lexicométrie. Geneva: Slatkine.Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal

about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.———. 1991. “Metaphor in Politics (An Open Letter to the Internet).” http://

philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-l.htm.———. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and

Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony, 2nd ed. Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2001. “Metaphors of Terror.” http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html.

———. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green

———. 2006. Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George, and Eve Sweetser. 1994. “Preface.” In Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.

———. 2000. The Language War. Berkeley: University of California Press.Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical

Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.———. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.Lebart, Ludovic, and André Salem. 1994. Statistique Textuelle. Paris: Dunod.Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity:

Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Little, Richard and Mark Wickham-Jones, eds. 2000. New Labour’s foreign policy: a

new moral crusade? Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press.Mahon, James Edwin. 1999. “Getting Your Sources Right: What Aristotle Didn’t

Say.” In Researching and Applying Metaphor, edited by Graham Low and Lynne Cameron, 69–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maingueneau, Dominique. 2002. “French Discourse Analysis (Guest Editorial).” Discourse Studies 4 (3): 267–275.

294 Bibliography

Manning, Christopher D., and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mark, David. 2009. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Mayaffre, Damon. 2000. Le Poids Des Mots: Le Discours de Gauche et de Droite Dans L’entre-Deux-Guerres: Maurice Thorez, Léon Blum, Pierre-Etienne Flandin et André Tardieu, 1928–1939. Paris: Honoré Champion.

———. 2004. Paroles de Président. Paris: Honoré Champion.———. 2007. “L’analyse Des Données Textuelles Aujourd’hui: Du Corpus

Comme Une Urne Au Corpus Comme Un Plan. Retour Sur Les Travaux Actuels de Topographie/topologie Textuelle.” Lexicometrica 7.

McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miliband, Ralph. 1961. Parliamentary Socialism: A Study in the Politics of Labour. London: Allen & Unwin.

———. 1994. Socialism for a Sceptical Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Montgomery, M. 1999. “Speaking Sincerely: Public Reactions to the Death of

Diana.” Language and Literature 8 (1): 5.Moser, Mike. 2003. United We Brand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Mouffe, Chantal. 1998. “The Radical Centre – a Politics without Adversary.” Soundings.Musolff, Andreas. 2000. Mirror Images of Europe: Metaphors in the Public Debate

about Europe in Britain and Germany. München: Iudicium.———. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates

about Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Musolff, Andreas, and Jörg Zinken, eds 2009. Metaphor and Discourse. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.Myers, Frank. 2000. “Harold Macmillan’s ‘Winds of Change’ Speech: A Case

Study in the Rhetoric of Policy Change.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 3 (4): 555–75.Novitz, T. 2002. “A Revised Role for Trade Unions as Designed by New Labour:

The Representation Pyramid and ‘partnership.’” Journal of Law and Society 29 (3): 487–509.

Nunberg, Geoffrey D. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.

O’Driscoll, Cian. 2006. “Re-Negotiating the Just War: The Invasion of Iraq and Punitive War.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (3): 405–20.

OAD. 2009. Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Oakes, Michael P. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

OED. 2000. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Partington, Alan. 2003. The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-Doctor and

the Wolf-Pack at the White House. London: Routledge.Partington, Alan, and John Morley. 2004. “At the Heart of Ideology: Word

and Cluster/bundle Frequency in Political Debate.” In Practical Applications

Bibliography 295

in Language and Computers: PALC 2003, edited by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 179–92. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Pels, Dick. 2002. “Socialism between Fact and Value: From Tony Blair to Hendrik de Man and Back.” Journal of Political Ideologies 7 (3): 281.

Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2008. Traité de L’argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. 6e édition. Université de Bruxelles.

Piper, Alison. 2000. “Some Have Credit Cards and Others Have Giro Cheques: ‘Individuals’ and ‘People’ as Lifelong Learners in Late Modernity.” Discourse & Society 11 (4): 515–42.

Potter, Steve, and Julie Lloyd. 2005. “With War in Mind: A Dialogical Analysis of the Mindset Underlying Blair’s Case for War with Iraq in 2003.” Medicine, Confl ict & Survival 21 (4): 283–98.

Prabhakar, R. 2004. “Whatever Happened to Stakeholding?” Public Administration 82 (3): 567–84.

Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1.

Putnam, Hilary. 1975. “The Meaning of Meaning.” In Mind, Language, and Reality, 215–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quinn, Naomi. 1987. “Convergent Evidence for a Cultural Model of American Marriage.” In Cultural Models in Language and Thought, edited by Dorothy C. Holland and Naomi Quinn, 173–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rayson, Paul. 2003. “Matrix: A Statistical Method and Software Tool for Linguistic Analysis through Corpus Comparison.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

———. 2008. “From Key Words to Key Semantic Domains.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13 (4): 519–49.

———. 2009. Wmatrix: A Web-Based Corpus Processing Environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/.

Reeves, Richard. 2007. “Middle England. They’re Nicer than You Think.” The New Statesman, October 25. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/10/middle-england-class-social.

Renn, Stephen D. 2005. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.

Rentoul, John. 2001. Tony Blair: Prime Minister. London: Little, Brown.Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University

Press.Richards, Paul. 2004. Tony Blair in His Own Words. London: Politico’s.Riddell, Peter. 1997. “The End of Clause IV, 1994–95.” Contemporary British

History 11 (2): 24–49.Rohrer, Tim. 1995. “The Metaphorical Logic of (Political) Rape: The New Wor(l)

d Order.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2): 115.Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco José. 2003. “The Role of Mappings and

Domains in Understanding Metonymy.” In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, edited by Antonio Barcelona, 109–32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scammell, M. 2007. “Political Brands and Consumer Citizens: The Rebranding of Tony Blair.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611 (1): 176–92.

296 Bibliography

Scannell, Paddy. 1996. Radio, Television, and Modern Life: A Phenomenological Approach. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Schafer, M., and S. G Walker. 2006. “Democratic Leaders and the Democratic Peace: The Operational Codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.” International Studies Quarterly 50 (3): 561–83.

Schäffner, Christina, and Anita Wenden, eds 1995. Language and Peace. Aldershot, Hants, England: Dartmouth.

Schuldt, Jonathon P., Sara H. Konrath, and Norbert Schwarz. 2011. “‘Global Warming’ or ‘climate Change’?” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (1): 115–124.

Scott, Mike. 2010. “WordSmith Tools Help.” Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. http://www.lexically.net/downloads/version5/HTML/proc_tag_handling.htm.

Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2010. “A Sturdy Baby or a Derailing Train? Metaphorical Representations of the Euro in British and Italian Newspapers.” Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 22 (1): 107–39.

Semino, Elena, and Jonathan Culpeper. 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Semino, Elena, and Veronika Koller. 2009. “Metaphor, Politics and Gender: A Case Study from Italy.” In Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited by Kathleen Ahrens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Seyd, Patrick, and Paul Whiteley. 2002. New Labour’s Grassroots: The Transformation of the Labour Party Membership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W Sherif. 1969. Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

Sheth, Jagdish N., and Dr. Atul Parvatiyar, eds 1999. Handbook of Relationship Marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Describing English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2004. “Preface.” In Practical Applications in Language and Computers: PALC 2003, edited by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 7–11. Łódź Studies in Language; v. 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Skorczynska, Hanna. 2010. “Metaphor Marking and Metaphor Typological and Functional Ranges in Business Periodicals.” In Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World, edited by Graham Low, Alice Deignan, and Zazie Todd, 309–20. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Skorczynska, Hanna, and Alice Deignan. 2006. “Readership and Purpose in the Choice of Economics Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 21 (2): 87–104.

Skorczynska, Hanna, and J. Piqué-Angordans. 2005. “A Corpus-Based Description of Metaphorical Marking Patterns in Scientific and Popular Business Discourse.”

Smith, Martin J. 2001. “The Complexity of New Labour.” In New Labour in Government, edited by Steve Ludlam and Martin J. Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

———. 2010. “From Big Government to Big Society: Changing the State–Society Balance.” Parliamentary Affairs 63 (4): 818–833.

Smith, N., S. Hoffmann, and Paul Rayson. 2008. “Corpus Tools and Methods, Today and Tomorrow: Incorporating Linguists’ Manual Annotations.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (2): 163.

Bibliography 297

Steen, Gerard, and Joanna Gavins. 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.

Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, and Anna A. Kaal. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identifi cation: From Mip to Mipvu. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006a. “Negative Evidence and the Raw Frequency Fallacy.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2 (1): 61–77.

———. 2006b. “Words and Their Metaphors: A Corpus-Based Approach.” In Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, edited by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Thomas Gries, 63–105. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs ; 171. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Thomas Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–43.

Steger, Manfred B. 2005. Globalism: Market Ideology Meets Terrorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Sweetser, Eve. 1987. “The Definition of Lie.” In Cultural Models in Language and

Thought, edited by Dorothy C Holland and Naomi Quinn. Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1996. “Mental Spaces and the Grammar of Conditional Constructions.” In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, edited by Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2006. “Whose Rhyme Is Whose Reason? Sound and Sense in Cyrano de Bergerac.” Language and Literature 15 (1): 29.

———. 2007. “Looking at Space to Study Mental Spaces: Co-Speech Gesture as a Crucial Data Source in Cognitive Linguistics.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael Spivey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sweetser, Eve, and Barbara Dancygier. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sweetser, Eve, and Gilles Fauconnier. 1996. “Cognitive Links and Domains: Basic Aspects of Mental Space Theory.” In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, edited by Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Talmy, L. 1988. “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science 12 (1): 49–100.

Toolan, M. 1997. “What Is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why Are People Saying Such Terrible Things about It?” Language and Literature 6 (2): 83.

Tournier, Maurice. 2002a. Propos D’étymologie Sociale. Volume 3: Des Sources Du Sens. Langages (Lyon, France). Paris: Klincksieck.

———. 2002b. Propos D’étymologie Sociale. Volume 2: Des Mots En Politique. Langages (Lyon, France). Paris: Klincksieck.

Tsur, Reuven. 2008. Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. 2nd ed. expanded and updated. Brighton [England]: Sussex Academic Press.

Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

298 Bibliography

———. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, Teun. 1991. Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.———. 1997. “Cognitive Context Models and Discourse.” In Language Structure,

Discourse and the Access to Consciousness, edited by Stamenov, Maksim, 189–226. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

———. 1998. “Towards a Theory of Context and Experience Models in Discourse Processing.” In The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading, edited by Oostendorp and Susan R. Goldman, 1st ed. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

———. 2002. “Political Discourse and Political Cognition.” In Politics as text and talk: analytic approaches to political discourse, edited by Chilton, Paul and Christina Schäffner, 203–37. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

———. 2003. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Hamilton, Tannen and Schiffrin, 352–371. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

———. 2006. “Discourse, Context and Cognition.” Discourse Studies 8 (1): 159.———, ed. 2007. Discourse Studies, Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies. London:

Sage.———. 2010. “Can CDS Be Learned?” http://www.discourses.org/resources/

teachyourself/Can%20CDS%20be%20learned.html.Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1993. “Genre and Field in Critical Discourse Analysis:

A Synopsis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 193–223.Verini, James. 2004. “The Believer – Interview with George Lakoff.” http://www.

believermag.com/exclusives/?read=interview_lakoff.Vickers, R. 2000. “Blair’s Kosovo Campaign Political Communications, the Battle

for Public Opinion and Foreign Policy.” Civil Wars 3 (1): 55–70.White, Michael. 2003. “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth.” English

for Specifi c Purposes 22 (2): 131–51.Widdowson, Henry. 1996. “Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and Interpretation:

Conjectures and Refutations.” Language and Literature 5 (1): 57–69. ———. 2000. “On the Limitations of Linguistics Applied.” Applied Linguistics 21

(1): 3 –25. Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2006. “Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and

near Synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Applied Linguistics 27 (1): 103.Zhang, Hang. 2001. “Culture and Apology: The Hainan Island Incident.” World

Englishes 20 (3): 383–91.

299

Index

A

Airbrushed for change, 235, 236, 237, 238

Appropriation (stereotype), 8, 51, 81, 82, 89, 91, 94, 100, 106, 111–119, 223, 226, 233, 235, 259

Archer, Dawn, 25, 35, 37–9, 278Aristotle, 11, 21, 83, 275, 277

B

Baker, Paul, 25–9, 33–6, 40, 42, 49, 277, 278

Barthes, Roland, 83, 231, 232Baseline, 37–41Bevan, Aneurin, 37, 266Blair, Tony, 4, 5, 9, 15, 18, 36, 42, 49,

51, 56, 66, 67, 68, 73, 76, 79, 94, 95, 97, 107, 109, 115–9, 122, 127, 139, 164–8, 171, 177, 194, 200, 201, 208, 210–6, 222–230, 236, 237, 240–3, 248, 250–7, 260–6, 282

Blending Theory, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 128, 143, 144, 170, 233, 234, 258, 260, 275

Bourdieu, Pierre, 262, 281Branding, 56, 66, 71, 79, 109, 119,

245, 246Britain, 1, 3, 8, 36, 45–9, 61, 70,

73, 77, 86, 94, 95, 100, 117, 119, 123, 127, 134, 139, 141, 142, 145, 150–8, 162–4, 170, 174, 189, 191–3, 196, 199, 203, 207, 209, 214, 217–222, 225, 229, 233, 237, 242–6, 250–260, 270

British National Corpus, 8, 37, 38, 40, 41, 46–8, 147, 149

Broken Society, 156, 221, 240, 243, 244, 283

Brown, Gordon, 5, 9, 36, 51, 56, 66, 68, 79, 119, 127, 165,

210–4, 217, 224, 225, 230, 232–5, 240, 248, 252–7, 260, 266, 282, 284

Building metaphors, 4, 49, 63, 150–7, 198, 245, 246, 257

Business, 13, 22, 31, 44, 45, 72, 89–91, 101–111, 200, 203, 280

C

Callaghan, James, 37, 68, 86, 161, 267, 268

Cameron, David, 30, 31, 34, 37, 116, 156, 162, 211, 218, 221, 222, 229, 232–240, 243–5, 254, 255, 257, 275–7, 282

Campaign (political), 32, 84, 139, 156, 219, 229, 238, 239, 244, 246, 254, 262, 280

Campbell, Alastair, 63, 119Car metaphors, 161, 168, 245Change, 4–9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20–2, 32,

34, 36, 39, 42, 44–6, 49, 53, 54, 58, 59, 64, 66, 68, 73, 79, 82, 95, 101, 119–260, 276, 279, 281–3

Charaudeau, Patrick, 16, 51, 118, 275

Charteris-Black, Jonathan, 7, 20–2, 28, 30, 32, 37, 83, 122, 146, 154, 276

Chilton, Paul, 17, 20, 23, 83, 276, 277

Chi-square, 40, 42, 64Choice, 9, 15, 18, 34, 44, 45, 47, 63,

122, 137, 141, 149, 156–8, 162, 163, 165, 186, 191–207, 217, 225, 240, 242, 250–7

Chouliaraki, Lilie, 17, 83Cienki, Alan, 3, 23, 30–2, 84, 277CLAWS, 38Climate change, 193Clohesy, Anthony, 80, 195, 207

300 Index

Cluster (metaphor), 31, 154, 186, 239, 246, 277, 278

Coates, David, 6, 7, 194Code, 34, 43–8, 57, 58, 104, 202,

206, 207, 255, 259Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 7, 10–6, 19,

20, 23–30, 39, 42, 49, 83, 275, 276Collocation, 28, 38, 39, 42–4, 48, 54,

59, 60, 63, 70, 71, 77, 109, 137, 140, 148, 166, 173, 177, 179, 190, 193, 216, 218, 221, 227, 243, 247, 248, 259, 278, 279, 283

Compassionate conservatism, 221, 223, 229, 234, 235, 237, 245, 246, 257

Concept, 1, 11, 12, 15, 17, 25, 33–48, 53, 55, 69, 72, 77–83, 89–92, 102, 109, 111, 118, 121, 124, 125, 127–139, 146, 147, 149, 152, 157, 158, 165, 166, 170, 171, 175, 179–184, 189, 190, 194, 195, 197, 206, 211–221, 226, 232, 236, 242, 246–8, 252, 257, 259, 275, 278, 279, 282

Conceptual metaphor, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 29, 32, 39, 45, 81, 160, 280

Conceptual Metaphor Theory, 11–6, 23, 29, 276, 280

Concordance, 3, 34, 38, 39, 43–8, 57, 62, 65, 73, 75, 76, 97–9, 104, 113, 122, 131, 142, 148, 149, 150, 152, 158, 159, 172, 175, 177, 179, 184, 191, 217, 221, 227, 228, 243, 248, 252, 259, 278, 280

Conditional constructions, 14, 200–3Consensus (seeking), 17, 40, 70, 72,

73, 79, 122, 179Conservatives, 4, 6, 8, 13, 35, 37,

51, 53–6, 61–6, 69, 72, 75–8, 82, 84–91, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 109, 111–9, 125, 127, 130, 134–6, 139–145, 148, 150, 151, 154–7, 161–170, 174, 176, 177, 179, 194–247, 252–61, 280, 283

Corpus, 2, 3, 7–12, 24–48, 53, 55, 57, 60–4, 70, 75, 76, 89, 94, 98, 106, 109, 119, 122, 125, 128, 130–7, 140, 146, 148–159, 165, 171–7, 181, 183, 184, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198, 201,

205, 206, 210–4, 221, 223, 227, 242, 255, 256, 258, 260–3, 277–9, 282

Corpus linguistics, 7, 24–9, 42, 48, 258Corpus-based/corpus-driven, 1–3, 7,

10, 11, 16, 25–9, 32, 33, 35, 48, 49, 258

Coulson, Seana, 2, 14–6, 21, 238, 275Counterfactuality, 14, 16Crime, 13, 36, 75, 76, 85, 86, 91, 92,

95–101, 111, 112, 116, 123, 142, 150, 202, 211, 223–5, 228, 229, 257, 280, 283

Crisis (financial), 102, 128, 211, 212, 214, 218, 219, 222–9, 240, 241, 246–9, 252, 256, 257, 283

Critical Discourse Analysis, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16–23, 28, 29, 42, 48, 83, 181, 276, 277

Croft, William, 19, 39, 275, 277Cut-off value, 39, 40, 42, 47, 53, 278

D

Dancygier, Barbara, 2, 14, 15, 200, 275

Deignan, Alice, 22, 23, 30, 32, 34, 276, 277

Democracy, 4, 44, 51, 56, 71–6, 94, 101, 111, 123, 132, 146, 149, 182, 194, 217, 218

Demonization, 145, 146Discourse Analysis, 2, 7, 10, 16, 17,

21, 23–9, 39, 49, 258, 277Disraeli, Benjamin, 221, 222

E

Economy, 4, 6, 17, 21, 22, 36, 44, 45, 77, 86, 88, 89, 91, 95, 101–112, 116, 123, 141–4, 148–50, 154, 163, 171–92, 195, 199, 200, 201, 207, 210, 222–9, 247, 248, 250, 253, 256, 257, 273

Education, 36, 72, 78, 99, 100, 142, 145, 150, 159, 161, 192, 196, 238, 253, 254

Election Manifestos, 4, 36, 37, 51, 135, 141, 154, 176, 211, 216, 219, 221, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 274

Index 301

Election poster, 85, 87, 140, 143, 144, 164, 165, 226, 229, 230–6, 257, 260

Empirical (methods), 2, 3, 7, 15, 22–32, 73, 84, 137, 207–9, 260

Entailment (metaphorical), 30, 31, 84, 114, 132, 155, 157, 164, 187, 190, 244, 245

Epistemic distance, 15Equality, 5, 55, 74–8, 123, 204, 205Ethics, 6, 15, 69, 72, 79, 179–84, 216,

251, 261, 264Europe, 4, 36, 115, 150, 166, 172,

183, 186, 188, 191, 196, 203, 250, 253, 254, 265, 280

Evidentiality, 15, 275Extended context, 46, 203, 205

F

Fairclough, Norman, 2, 6, 17–22, 28, 29, 72, 73, 83, 171, 177, 179–82, 193, 194, 276, 277

Fairness, 73–6, 194, 216–9Fauconnier, Gilles, 2, 13–6, 275, 276Finlayson, Alan, 6, 8, 37, 125, 128,

162, 208, 261Flickr, 232, 235Forward/back, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 20, 23, 76,

87, 100, 114, 124, 127, 128, 135, 138, 139, 143–6, 156, 162–70, 176, 177, 186, 193, 202, 210–6, 221, 222, 225, 227, 229, 233, 238, 240, 242, 244, 245, 248, 250, 254, 260, 275, 283

Freedom, 41, 73–7, 217, 218, 220, 282Frequency, 3, 25, 27, 38–41, 47, 58,

76, 91, 94, 97, 101, 102, 111, 122, 130–8, 149, 152, 158, 173, 176, 181, 183, 184, 190, 195–8, 214, 216, 242, 248, 252, 255, 278

Future, 5, 25, 45, 46, 102, 114, 124, 129, 130, 132, 135–42, 146, 151, 154–69, 188–92, 199, 207, 209, 216, 233, 242, 249, 254, 259, 260–5, 270

G

Gesture, 31, 32, 86Globalisation, 9, 22, 27, 31, 34, 46,

71–3, 121, 122, 125, 141, 170–99,

203, 207–11, 214, 219, 222, 225, 226, 228, 240, 246–52, 256, 257, 260, 264, 272, 282, 283

Globalism, 182Globalist discourse, 171, 182, 190,

207, 209, 240, 248, 256, 260Goal, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 22, 25, 44, 56,

66–70, 73, 77–9, 84, 112, 124, 127, 138, 154, 155, 162–9, 202, 212, 223, 224, 237, 245, 253, 259

Goal-oriented (path), 46, 70, 157, 159, 162, 164, 168, 169, 170

Going viral, 230, 232, 235, 240, 283Gould, Philip, 63, 66, 67, 80, 81, 109Government, 4, 6, 44, 45, 56–62, 65,

66, 73–5, 86, 88, 94, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 108, 109, 115, 116, 121, 124, 133–9, 142, 145, 148–51, 164, 187, 195, 199, 201, 203, 206, 218–22, 225, 243–6, 250–4, 280, 283

Grady, Joseph, 15, 152, 275, 277Gries, Stefan, 25, 277, 278Guardian, the, 230–5, 240, 263, 282

H

Hague, William, 37, 115, 143, 211, 269, 270

Halliday, Michael, 1, 201Heffernan, Richard, 3, 6, 107,

111–4, 211Hegemony, 10, 18, 20, 21, 72, 83,

194, 258, 278

I

Identity, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 35, 42, 49, 51, 56, 60, 64, 66, 71, 79, 81, 98, 100, 101, 106, 116, 118, 119, 143, 144, 158–61, 168, 169, 204, 210, 211–9, 232–4, 256, 259, 260, 275, 279

Ideology, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 17–23, 27, 42, 55, 58, 67, 111, 112, 117, 145, 214, 216, 218, 258, 277

Incompetence (stereotype), 86, 88, 91, 94, 101, 111–6, 145

Inevitability (globalisation), 9, 122, 157, 170, 171, 174, 182–4, 187, 189, 190, 207, 209, 249, 253, 260

302 Index

Input space (Blending), 16, 145, 168, 170, 233

Investment, 102, 104, 132, 148, 197, 228, 248

Iraq, 18, 73, 94, 101, 122, 171, 193, 250–2, 256, 257, 265

J

Johnson, Keith, 2, 11, 12, 30, 32, 40, 64, 65, 154, 211, 271, 275, 278

Journey metaphors, 7, 34, 45, 46, 128, 157–70, 189, 208, 241, 243, 260

Justice, 68, 73, 75, 81, 91, 97, 172, 179, 182, 186, 215, 272

K

Keyness, 3, 28, 34–48, 53, 54, 58, 63, 64, 70, 73, 74, 76, 89–108, 114, 122, 128–36, 146, 147, 152, 158–61, 176, 181, 183, 195–202, 205–7, 211–9, 223–8, 240, 241, 242, 246, 247, 253, 255, 259, 260, 278

Kinnock, Neil, 4, 37, 97, 98, 115, 173–6, 225, 268

Koller, Veronika, 6, 22, 23, 30, 31, 34, 35, 109, 277

L

Lakoff, George, 2, 8, 11–3, 20–3, 30–2, 81–8, 95, 97, 98, 102, 109, 110, 114, 116, 128, 138, 154, 192, 218, 226, 239, 259, 275–7, 280, 282

Lakoff, Robin, 137Langacker, Ronald, 2, 39, 61, 62,

157, 275Leadership, 4, 36, 115–8, 125, 127,

203, 210, 212, 225, 245, 253Legitimacy, 56, 81, 138, 210, 215,

224, 248, 257, 276Legitimation (strategy), 5, 8, 15, 119,

121, 193, 202, 208, 222, 260Lemma, 27, 45, 152, 158, 183Liberalisation, 122, 148, 157, 162,

168–70, 193, 260Liberalism, 191, 220Log likelihood calculation/score,

40–2, 46–8, 53–9, 63–5, 69, 76–8,

89–94, 103–9, 122, 129–39, 146–52, 158–61, 166, 173, 176, 177, 179, 181, 183, 190, 195–202, 205, 206, 214–28, 241–3, 247, 248, 253, 279, 283

Logistic regression, 64, 65

M

Major, John, 37, 115, 269Meme (Internet), 230, 232, 235, 240,

283, 284Mental Space Theory, 2, 7, 10,

13–5, 23, 181, 182, 200, 201, 204–7, 251, 275

Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), 48

Metaphorical mapping, 15, 16, 21, 34, 110, 143, 144, 159, 162, 164, 168–70, 217, 233, 234, 241, 244, 246, 281

Metonymy, 58, 83, 86, 88, 114, 139, 143, 144, 169, 170, 219, 233, 234, 237, 275, 283

Miliband, Ed, 9, 210–6, 218, 221–6, 229, 248–57, 260, 271, 282

Modernisation, 6–8, 16, 32, 42, 113, 128, 132, 134, 142, 150, 151, 155, 157, 162, 165, 167, 170, 177, 198–201, 207–9, 260, 281

Mouffe, Chantal, 9, 122, 171, 193–5, 207–9, 218, 260

Musolff, Andreas, 30

N

Narrative, 6, 8, 13, 16, 32, 42, 49, 119, 128, 132, 134, 137–9, 150, 151, 155, 157, 162–70, 177, 195, 198, 199, 207–11, 215, 257, 259, 260, 280

Nation metaphors, 22, 157, 167, 244–6

NHS, 154, 237, 238, 245, 270No-alternative choice, 15, 44, 47,

193–209, 242, 252–260Nurturant-Parent Model, 8, 12, 13,

22, 31, 81–6, 101, 112–9, 226, 232, 234–40, 245, 257, 259

Index 303

O

Oakley, Todd, 2, 15, 16, 21, 275, 281overuse/underuse (keyness), 41, 47,

91, 96, 131–9, 146, 148, 201, 214, 226, 227, 240, 252, 255

Ownership, 4, 5, 54, 72, 81, 105, 127, 144, 196, 222

P

Parody, 211, 226, 229–40, 257, 260, 283

Partnership, 29, 33, 102, 106–11, 172, 199, 228, 229, 265, 272, 280, 281

Part-of-Speech (tag), 38, 58, 60–5Paths (metaphor), 45, 46, 157–9,

162–70, 189, 208, 241Policy, 3–9, 15, 17, 36, 58, 59, 68, 69,

74, 75, 79, 84, 86, 91, 94–8, 101, 102, 107, 108, 112, 115, 116, 119, 121–7, 133, 134, 139, 142, 150, 153–6, 161–71, 188–5, 199–202, 208, 209, 215, 218, 219–21, 228–30, 237, 246, 249, 250, 259, 260, 269, 270, 282

post-Blair (era, Labour), 210–6, 224–9, 247, 252, 255, 257, 259

Poverty, 68, 74, 86, 94, 95, 98, 106, 112, 134, 178, 179, 189, 190, 239, 246, 247, 265, 277

Pragglejaz group, 31–3, 45, 110, 277, 280

Pragmatics, 8, 51, 56, 67, 69, 78, 79, 119, 190, 259, 262, 275

Primary sense, 46, 110, 130, 152, 237

Principle (political), 8, 18, 20, 27, 44, 51, 53, 56, 66–74, 78, 79, 107, 113, 119, 128, 141, 156, 162, 202, 258, 259, 279

Profile (Cogling), 2, 11, 12, 61, 62, 101, 106, 111, 124, 130, 132, 134, 138, 146, 149, 155, 179, 184, 190–6, 209, 260

Progress, 4, 9, 12, 13, 49, 121, 122, 127, 128, 138, 146–9, 150–7, 164–72, 180, 182, 190–3, 198, 204, 208, 209, 239–43, 246, 248, 256–60

Progressive, 13, 55, 71, 72, 102, 141, 149, 150, 151, 155, 164, 186, 191, 195, 214, 237

Prototype, 44, 61, 192–8, 200, 203, 207, 217, 221, 233, 254–6

Q

Qualitative (methods), 3, 8, 11, 24–9, 42, 43, 48, 113, 122, 128, 140, 146, 149–53, 159, 162, 177, 207, 218, 235, 240, 248, 255, 259

Quantitative (methods), 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 23–9, 35, 38, 42, 43, 48, 128, 130, 146–54, 159, 183, 201, 207, 212, 218, 252, 255, 259

R

Rayson, Paul, 3, 26, 35, 38–40, 259, 278, 282

Reciprocation (stereotype), 8, 51, 81, 82, 113, 116–9, 145, 259

Reform, 8, 51, 54, 64, 65, 79, 81, 102, 119, 123, 124, 129, 131, 132, 153, 161, 169, 202, 224, 272

Relationship Marketing, 109Renewal, 1, 8, 44, 45, 46, 64, 69, 119,

130, 131, 134, 137, 151, 154, 155, 158, 159, 259

Rhetorical cross-dressing, 226, 229Rhetorics, 6, 18, 20, 21, 68, 72, 78,

83, 95, 98, 109, 116, 117, 121, 127, 145, 155, 194, 202, 208, 209, 217, 225, 240, 252, 264, 282

Romance metaphor, 109, 110

S

Scenario, worst-case, 14, 83, 86, 88, 100, 114, 233

Schoolyard (frame), 233, 234Science-fiction (frame), 239Security, 44, 74, 97, 123, 144, 177,

180, 181, 225, 273, 281Semantic domain, 11, 14–7, 20, 22,

30, 34, 35, 39, 45, 46, 75, 85, 89, 91, 94–9, 101, 104–11, 128–30, 158,

304 Index

159, 170, 179, 184, 186, 214, 227, 228, 233, 240, 245, 248, 253, 275

Semantic frame, 2, 8–14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 31, 44, 55–57, 61, 78, 79, 81, 83, 89, 91, 94, 97–128, 135, 137, 140, 141, 148, 157, 159, 162, 163, 170–4, 179, 183, 186–203, 207–9, 217–21, 225, 227, 229–39, 242, 245, 246, 248, 253, 254, 259, 260, 261, 276, 283

Semantic prosody, 27, 44, 148, 223Semino, Elena, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 21, 23,

30, 168, 186, 275–7, 280Significance (statistical), 10, 24–3,

38–43, 47, 48, 53–5, 58–70, 74–9, 89, 91, 94, 96–8, 105, 106, 108, 109, 122, 128, 130–9, 145–9, 152, 158–61, 166, 173, 176–84, 190, 195, 197, 201, 205–23, 226–9, 237, 240–3, 247–2, 255, 257, 258, 261, 262, 278, 279, 283

Sinclair, John, 25–7, 35, 44, 148, 278Slogan, 51, 98, 100, 107, 111, 139,

230, 233–9, 242, 244, 279Smith, John, 4, 33, 37, 68, 117, 162,

193, 211, 227, 268, 270, 272, 283Socialism, 56, 69, 79, 127, 169, 170,

173, 203, 204, 214–6, 235, 263Soft (stereotype), 81, 84–6, 91, 94, 95,

98, 100, 101, 111, 116–8, 153Soundbite, 51, 217, 219–25, 229,

244, 257Source (domain), 11, 22, 31, 34, 45,

109, 110, 152, 154, 157, 241, 276Space metaphors, 6, 12–5, 32, 98, 135,

143–6, 154, 157, 162, 168, 169, 175, 181, 182, 188, 200, 201, 204–9, 217, 233, 234, 251, 252, 258

Stakeholder (society), 36, 106, 107, 222Stefanowitsch, Anatol, 277Stereotype (definition, pathological),

8, 23, 32, 51, 80–91, 94, 95, 98, 100–1, 111–19, 142, 205, 210, 211, 220, 229, 232–7, 240, 257, 259, 280

Strict-Father model, 13, 30–2, 84, 85, 88, 98, 101, 111–8, 217, 220, 221, 226, 232, 237, 240, 257

Sweetser, Eve, 2, 13–5, 200, 251, 262, 275–7

T

Tag (semantic, PoS), 38, 39, 40, 45, 90, 92, 129, 147

Target (domain), 11, 21, 34, 35, 45, 46, 101, 184, 186, 275

Tax, 88, 98, 99, 102, 104, 134, 148, 155, 227, 270

Terrorism, 31, 55, 93–5, 99, 178, 179, 182, 186, 190, 199, 200, 248, 250, 280

Thatcher, Margaret, 6, 9, 86, 97, 144, 145, 168, 204, 225, 238, 245, 246, 257, 260, 281

Thatcherism, 6, 7, 107, 128, 194Thatcherite, 6, 232, 240Third Way (Labour), 6, 107, 151, 166,

180, 191, 193, 194, 199, 202, 204, 253, 280

Threat, 9, 72, 107, 122, 141, 142, 144, 169, 171, 176, 188, 189, 192–5, 200, 202, 203, 207–9, 218, 233, 234, 248, 249, 250, 257, 260

Time metaphors, 12, 29, 37, 58, 107, 112, 136, 155, 157, 161, 162, 164–8, 170, 172, 188, 189, 250, 252

Time-oriented (path), 164, 166, 168, 170, 189

Toolan, Michael, 18, 19, 28Tory/Tories, 56, 87, 95, 105, 112–6,

139, 142–4, 148, 161–4, 166, 196, 201, 215, 230, 281

Tough, 44, 91–5, 98–101, 111, 112, 114, 116, 153, 202, 210, 217, 223–6, 232, 235, 240, 249, 257

Tournier, Michel, 121Trade Union, 3, 4, 75Trajector, 157–9, 163, 167, 188,

189, 190Turner, Mark, 2, 14, 16, 275, 276Twitter, 232, 283

U

United Kingdom, 45, 203, 253, 283United States, 32, 94USAS, 35, 38, 39, 45, 130, 131, 152,

157

Index 305

V

Values, 13, 14, 20, 21, 36, 41, 62, 67–80, 119, 178–86, 191, 216–20, 223, 249, 257, 266, 272, 275–7

Van Dijk, Teun, 18Viewpoint, 15, 167, 168, 205, 275

W

War, 12, 22, 36, 37, 73, 86, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 100, 101, 111, 122, 171, 182, 193, 204, 222, 238, 250–2, 256, 257, 277, 280

Welfare (state), 95, 97, 106, 123, 150, 153, 162, 196, 227, 228, 273

Widdowson, Henry, 3, 18, 26, 28, 29, 276

Wilson, Harold, 24, 37, 267WMatrix, 3, 8, 34, 35, 38–43, 48, 63,

259, 278, 280, 282www.mydavidcameron.com, 236, 283

Z

Zombie (metaphor), 143, 144, 145, 239