Metaphor in American editorial cartoons about the presidential elections of 1936 and 2012

(1)

Metaphor in American editorial cartoons about the

presidential elections of 1936 and 2012

A Research Master’s Thesis in Media Studies

By Lucas Reehorst

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of the Humanities

Research Master’s in Media Studies

Supervisor: dr. C.J. Forceville Second Reader: dr. A. Tseronis Third Reader: dr. F.A.M. Laeven

Name: Lucas Reehorst Student number: 5755301

E-mail: Lucas.Reehorst@hotmail.com July 2014

(2)

1

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to all the travelers I have encountered along the road towards the completion of this thesis. I would like to especially thank Sara Polak and Marja Roholl, for their invaluable encouragement and for introducing me to Roosevelt and his New Deal, Loes for her endless support and feedback and Charles Forceville, for opening my eyes to the conceptual and pictorial metaphors that surround us and providing a source of constant inspiration through his own work, but above all for his guidance and enthusiasm, which have made venturing into the world of metaphor a very fun and pleasant experience.

(5)

4

Introduction

American elections are regularly described in terms of races: candidates run for office, little known candidates who are suddenly propelled into prominent positions are described as dark horses (a term borrowed from the realm of horse racing), and the presidential election itself is generally referred to as the race for the White House.

Expressions such as these are examples of metaphors. They invite us to think about one thing: the metaphor’s target, ELECTIONS, in terms of another, the metaphor’s source: in this case RACES.1 Metaphors highlight the aspects of the target domain that it shares with the source, and obscure those aspects of the target that are absent in the source domain. According to Broh (1980) the venerable HORSE RACE metaphor, for example, prompts commentators to focus too much of their attention to the question which of the candidates is in the lead. Metaphors invite us to map some features associated with the source onto the target and when we think in terms of a metaphor, the logic of a source domain structures our understanding of its target.

Since the publication of Lakoff and Johnson’s 1980 monograph Metaphors we live by, systematic use of metaphor in everyday language such as the RACING metaphors used to describe American elections has received ample attention. Lakoff and Johnson popularized the idea that such expressions are not merely quaint linguistic flourishes, but instead reflect much about the way humans think. Inspired by this notion, a number of researchers have over the past decades turned their attention to the metaphors used to describe elections (e.g. Howe 1988, Blankenship and Kang 1991, Scheithauer 2011).

So far these studies have focussed primarily on the verbal metaphors used to describe elections presented in various corpora of written texts. Over the past decades however, researchers who have taken Lakoff and Johnson’s insistence that metaphor is a conceptual rather than a linguistic phenomenon to heart (e.g. Forceville 1996, Bounegru and Forceville 2011), have shown that verbal metaphors are just one of the manifestations of metaphor and begun to investigate other types of metaphor, such as pictorial and multimodal metaphors.2

The primary goal of this thesis is to contribute to the research about the metaphors used to think about the target domain ELECTIONS by exploring the pictorial and multimodal metaphors presented in editorial cartoons about the American presidential elections of 1936 and 2012.

1_{Following the CMT (Conceptual Metaphor Theory) convention, verbalizations of source and target domains}

are offered in SMALL CAPITALS in this thesis.

2_{Multimodal metaphors are metaphors that involve more than one communicative mode, e.g. words and}

(6)

5

A central question in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is what aspects of the metaphorical conceptualization of a target vary (across and within cultures) and which are universal.3 So far research into variation in the use of metaphors to think about the target domain ELECTIONS has consisted of cross-cultural comparisons of the metaphors used to describe elections in different languages and countries (e.g. Abadi and Sacerdoti 2001, Scheithauer 2007, Burnes 2011). The aim of this thesis is to complement this research, by comparing the metaphors used to convey something about the target domain ELECTIONS in two different periods instead.

The American presidential elections of 1936 and 2012 were chosen because the Democratic and Republican candidates who faced each other in these elections were similar in a number of important respects. Both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama, who respectively ran as Democratic presidential nominees during the elections of 1936 and 2012, had become President four years earlier during a devastating financial crisis. Both Mitt Romney and Alfred Landon, the Republican presidential nominees who ran against them, were millionaires and are reputed to lack firm convictions. Both Landon and Romney had previously served as a Governor, respectively in Massachusetts and Kansas, and had during their tenure as governor implemented measures that resembled measures taken by Roosevelt and Obama that they would later oppose (e.g. Romney passed a health care reform bill into law that resembled Obama’s controversial “Obamacare” laws). Their running mates, the Republican candidates for the Vice Presidency, Frank Knox and Paul Ryan both were outspoken champions of a laissez-faire approach to the government and the economy.

Of course, there are also numerous crucial differences between the two elections. For example, presidential debates, play a key role in modern presidential elections, but were not held in 1936 (the first of these was held in 1960).4 Moreover, during the 1936 elections, a third party, the Union Party, backed by various populist figures, including radio priest Father Charles Coughlin and old-age pension advocate Francis Townsend, played a much more significant role than any of the parties other than the Democratic and Republican did during the 2012 elections.5 Such differences and their significance will be discussed in more detail when they are relevant to the analysis of a particular cartoon.

In the first chapter of this thesis, four aspects of metaphor that will be studied in this thesis are identified: 1. the source domains in terms of which elections are represented, 2. the correspondences

3_{For a discussion of this issue see Kövecses (2005). Very briefly summarized, studies within the CMT paradigm}

into metaphorical variation across time and cultural have found that humans tend to think about abstract domains in terms of concrete bodily experiences that are by and large shared by most human beings and that many aspects of metaphor use are universally shared as a result. However, as we shall see in chapter 1, some important forms of variation in the use of metaphor across both time and space have also been unearthed.

4_{See Peterson (2012: 155-167) for a discussion of the history and significance of presidential debates.} 5_{See Leuchtenburg (1995 [1971]: 101-159) for an extended discussion of the 1936 election which also covers}

(7)

6

involved in these metaphors, 3. differences in the properties associated with the metaphor’s source domain in different era’s or by different communities, 4. the features of the metaphor’s source which the metaphor invites us to map onto the metaphor’s target.

In chapter 2, it is explained that four types of motivated metaphors often feature in editorial cartoons. It is argued that the metaphors presented in editorial cartoons often consist of comparisons to a source domains that is linked to the metaphor’s target. A speech held on a golf course, for example is especially likely to be depicted in terms of the source domain GOLF. Similarly, it is pointed out that cartoonists often construct metaphors which involve a source domain that happens to be especially topical at the time the cartoon is printed (e.g. the plunge in the opinion polls taken by Obama after his first presidential debate against Mitt Romney, was metaphorically compared to Felix Baumgartner’s freefall from a record height of 39 kilometers, in a cartoon printed on the day this record was set). It is also shown that numerous metaphors similarly are motivated by pictorial and language-related reasons. Moreover, it is mentioned that in some editorial cartoons metaphorical thoughts are ascribed to persons other than the cartoonist. In addition some hypotheses about the manner in which the use of metaphors of these various types influence the make-up of the range of source domains used to predicate something about ELECTIONS are discussed.

In chapter 3, a survey of previous studies on the metaphors used to think about elections is provided. First 8 studies, by Howe (1988), Blankenship and Kang (1991), Abadi and Sacerdoti (2001), Wei (2000, 2003), Scheithauer (2007), Burnes (2011) and Berberović (2013) that focus primarily on verbal metaphors used in various corpora of verbal texts are discussed in chronological order and subsequently I summarize a study by Conners (2005) on the metaphorical “allusions” used to predicate something about the American presidential elections of 2004.

In chapter 4 the corpus of cartoons that will be analyzed in this thesis is described. It is explained which cartoons are included in the corpus and how the cartoons were collected. In addition the manner in which they will be analyzed is discussed.

In chapter 5 the results of my analysis are presented. It is described how often the 16 most dominant source domains were used in the cartoons printed in 1936 and 2012 and these frequencies are discussed in comparison to the previous studies discussed in chapter 3. In addition, the correspondences involved in the metaphors are identified and the implications of the metaphors discussed.

In the conclusion the following research questions are addressed:

- What source domains have been used to convey something about the target domain ELECTIONS in the editorial cartoons about the American presidential elections of 1936 and 2012 examined in this thesis?

- What differences and similarities exist between the source domains used in the cartoons printed in 1936 and the cartoons printed in 2012?

(8)

7

- What differences and similarities exist between the source domains used in the corpora of editorial cartoons examined in this thesis and those examined in the nine previous studies discussed in chapter 3?

- How frequently are ascribed metaphors and the four types of motivated metaphors distinguished in chapter 2 used in the editorial cartoons included in the two corpora? What source domains are involved in metaphorical comparisons of these five different types? - Are there any metaphors presented in the corpus of editorial cartoons that involve the

same source-target pair, but have different implications or involve different sets of correspondences? Were different connotations and properties associated with the same source domain in different eras or by different groups?

(9)

8

1. Aspects of metaphor involved in the variations in the metaphorical

conceptualization of a target domain

In this first chapter it is argued that four aspects of metaphor need to be taken into account when researching variations in the manner in which metaphors are used to think about a target domain. These four aspects are: (1) the source domains applied to the target, (2) the correspondences between aspects of the target and source domains involved in the metaphor, (3) the characteristics associated with the source domain in a specific period or by a specific group and (4) the properties that the metaphor’s maker explicitly encourages or discourages the audience to map onto the target domain.

In this chapter it is explained what variation in each of these four aspects entails. Examples of the different types of variation are offered and it is described why it is pertinent to pay attention to these aspects of metaphor in this study.

1.1 Source-target pairings

The most straightforward and most easily discernible type of variation in the manner in which a given target domain is conceptualized metaphorically is variation in the source domains with which it is paired. One example of variation of this type can be found in the numerous different source domains that were popular features of discussions about memory throughout the ages: ranging from Socrates’ wax tablet to Freud’s magic tablet (similar to an Etch A Sketch) to the computer source domain that is currently popular (Draaisma 1995: 10-12). Other more complex examples of variation in source-target pairing include differences is in the frequency with which a given source domain is used to describe a target in different languages (see e.g. Boers 2003), or cross-cultural differences in the level of abstraction of the source domains used to talk about a given source (Kövecses 2005).

1.2 Correspondences/mappings

Some metaphors involve the same target and source domain, but differ in the manner in which the metaphor’s source is applied to the target, because they involve different correspondences or mappings. For example, the target PASSAGE OF TIME is described in terms of the source MOVEMENT OF ENTITIES RELATIVE TO A STATIC OBSERVER in both English and Aymara (an example of an English expression of this type would be “The end of the year is approaching”).6

However, the expressions in

6_{English and most other languages (but not Aymara), also contain expressions in which the passage of time}

instead is represented in terms of movement along a path by the person(s) who experience(s) time: e.g. “We’re

(10)

9

Aymara and English (and most other languages) differ in 1 important respect: in the Aymara language the future is described as located behind the static observer(s) and the past as located in front of them, while in English, as well as most other languages, the future is described as located in front of the observer(s) and the past as entities located behind them (Núñez and Sweetser 2006).

In CMT, the word “mappings” is usually used to describe the relationships between the aspects a source domain and their counterparts in the target domain. However, this word is also sometimes used to refer to the features that are transferred (“mapped”) onto the metaphor’s target. In order to avoid confusion between these two distinct aspects of a metaphorical comparison, in this thesis the word correspondences will be used to refer to the identity relations between aspects of a metaphor’s source and target instead. Thus we may say that the correspondences involved in the English metaphor are:

PASSAGE OF TIME IS MOVEMENT OF ENTITIES RELATIVE TO A STATIC OBSERVER (I) location faced by / in front of static observer  future

location of static observer  present location behind static observer  past

While the correspondences for the Aymara metaphor instead are:

PASSAGE OF TIME IS MOVEMENT OF ENTITIES RELATIVE TO A STATIC OBSERVER (II) location faced by / in front of static observer  past

location of static observer  present location behind static observer  future

For an example of two metaphors that involve the same target-source pair, but different sets of correspondences, that is more closely related to the topic of this thesis, let us now turn to a cartoon about the American presidential election of 1936 by Cyrus Hungerford titled “In the political classroom” (fig. 1.2.1). This cartoon depicts a young schoolgirl who is captivated by a romance novel that she has smuggled into the classroom and a young schoolboy whose interest also begins to shift away from the lesson and towards these contraband reading materials. On the ignored textbooks and the book that is captivating the attention of the schoolchildren, the respective titles “the 1936 presidential campaign” and “the love story of Edward and Wally” are visible. These titles, in combination with the cartoon’s title and labels attached to the schoolchildren, the writing on the blackboard, and generic expectations, allow (astute) readers of the cartoon to piece together that the cartoon is intended to invite them to construe a metaphor that might be verbalized as ELECTIONS ARE EXAMINATIONS and involves the following set of correspondences:

(11)

10 ELECTIONS ARE SCHOOL WORK (I)

examination  election

coursework  presentational campaigns schoolchildren  voters

schoolgirl  the female portion of the public schoolboy  the male portion of the public

distracting reading materials smuggled into a classroom  stories about the relationship between Edward VIII of England and Wallis Simpson

Figure 1.2.1. Cyrus Hungerford. “In the political classroom”. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October 29, 1936.

A similar metaphor sometimes crops up in stories about presidential debates. In their study of metaphorical expressions used to describe the debates between the candidates running in the American presidential elections of 1984, Jane Blankenship and Jong Guen Kang (1991), for example found that the expression “crammed like schoolchildren” was used to describe the preparations of the candidates. An almost identical expression was used in an article printed in The New York Times in September 2012, about the preparation for that year’s debates by President Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney: “both are cramming like college students before an exam” (Baker and Parker: 2012).7

These expressions reflect an underlying metaphor that at first glance appears to be similar to the metaphor presented in Hungerford’s cartoon. While it would not be accurate to verbalize the second metaphor as ELECTIONS ARE EXAMINATIONS, we can say that in both metaphors the target of the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is discussed in terms of the source domain SCHOOL WORK. However the correspondences involved in the two metaphors differ in several respects. In the second metaphor it are not the voters, but the presidential candidates who correspond to the students, while presidential debates in this

7_{Technically these two expressions are similes rather than metaphors, but within CMT cross-domain}

(12)

11

metaphor correspond to exams, rather than to part of the coursework (as they would in a metaphor in which the campaign is coursework to be studied by the voters). The second metaphor involves the following correspondences:

ELECTIONS ARE SCHOOL WORK (II) examinations  debates

exam preparation  debate preparation students  candidates

The metaphor presented in Hungerford’s cartoon emphasizes that voters have a responsibility to seek out information about the presidential candidates in order to be able to make an informed decision when they cast their votes and that there may be right as well as wrong answers to the question ‘who should become the next president of the United States?’ The metaphor obscures the fact that it is the judgment of the voters that will determine the outcome of the election; rather than being cast in the role of those who offers an appraisal, they are presented as students who have to undergo a test that will be marked by others.

Metaphorical expressions that put the candidates in the position of students or school children, by contrast, emphasize the effort that the candidates will have to make. The metaphor is vague on the identity of the graders of the examination, so the fact that candidates will be evaluated by voters is not emphasized very strongly, but it is perhaps obscured somewhat less completely in this type of metaphor than in the metaphor in which the voters correspond to the school children.

Hungerford’s metaphor and the metaphor underlying expressions such as “crammed like

schoolchildren” highlight and obscure different aspects of the source domains, in spite of the fact that

in both metaphors the source domain SCHOOL WORK is used to understand the target domain PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. To answer the question whether the metaphors used to think about a given target domain systematically obscure certain aspects of this domain, it is important not only to study what source domains are applied to this target, but also to investigate which correspondences the metaphor involves.

1.3 Properties and connotations associated with a source domain

In his 1995 study of the use of epidemiological metaphors in discussions about the financial crises that

plagued Victorian England, historian Timothy Alborn shows that metaphors with the same target and

source domains may take on radically different meanings when its users have a different understanding of the source domain. During this period, mainstream thinking about epidemic diseases, propelled by the research by William Farr, John Snow and others, underwent a radical transition. At

(13)

12

the beginning of the 19th century epidemics were usually regarded as a divine retribution and attributed to individual moral failings, while attempts to combat the diseases where focused “on teaching potential victims of epidemics to mend their ways” (Alborn 1994: 285-7). Towards the second half of the century, Alborn writes, “people stopped looking for disease (...) in the realm of individual behavior” as it became accepted that the spread of epidemic diseases should be attributed to environmental causes instead and active intervention by the state became the prescribed course of action to combat the spread of epidemic diseases (ibid: 298-300). A simultaneous shift occurred in the thinking about economic crises in Victorian England (ibid: 300-7), as a result of which comparisons to epidemic diseases remained a staple in discussions about financial crises throughout the 19th century, while the meaning of these metaphors changed drastically. While such metaphors were first used to stress that financial crises were the result of moral failings and thus to some extent inevitable and to be combated through individual moral strengthening, later they were used to argue in favour of government intervention, Alborn writes:

[T]hroughout this period of parallel transitions, people continued to talk about commercial crises using epidemic language, but the meaning of their language shifted to keep up with the changing connotations of each malady. (ibid: 297)

Historian William Leuchtenburg (1994 [1964]) similarly has argued that during the 1930s, both New Deal progressives and fiscal conservatives used WAR as a source domain to think about FINANCIAL CRISES, but drew very different conclusions from this metaphorical thought process, because the properties associated with the source domain by these two groups, were very different. Leuchtenburg explains that, although the understanding of WAR of both groups was shaped by the First World War, the New Dealers “thought of the war as a paradigm for national planning”, while the fiscal conservatives “remembered it as a time of voluntary action and a minimum of disturbance of the profit system” (1964: 107).

In similar vein Lakoff (2012) has suggested that American progressives and conservatives also draw vastly different conclusions from the metaphor THE NATION IS A FAMILY, as liberals favour a nurturing family model, while conservatives favour a strict father model, although he does not offer much linguistic evidence to back up this claim.

It should be noted that differences in the construal of a source domain that have arisen over time need not have exclusively resulted from subjective factors, but can also be dependent at least in part on real world changes. For example both in 1936 and 2012 numerous cartoons about the presidential election compared the election to courtship and relationships. The meaning of these metaphors has shifted not only because the (mainstream) thinking about courtship and relationships has changed (quite drastically) in the 76 years that passed between 1936 and 2012, but also because the world itself has changed (e.g. divorce rates have gone up drastically since then).

(14)

13

When examining variation in the use of metaphors, especially when doing historical research, it may be crucial to investigate not only what sources are used to predicate something about a given target, but also examine how the source domain was understood.

1.4 Mappable features

As philosopher Max Black has stressed, metaphors are not necessarily limited to the conferring of properties most commonly associated with a source domain within the community of which the metaphor’s maker is part, but may also involve “novel and nonplatidunious mappings”, as the maker of a metaphor can elaborate on the nature of the source domain and on its relation to the metaphor’s target in order to guide the interpretation of the metaphor by the audience and bring certain mappings to their attention or suppress them (Black 1954: 290, 1977: 442). Often the titles above and captions below editorial cartoons serve to steer the interpretation of the metaphors visually presented in the cartoons. In addition, a lot can often be glanced from the portrayal of the different elements in the cartoon (e.g. from the facial expressions of the figures depicted in it, it can often be gleaned whether positively or negatively valued characteristics of a source should be mapped onto a target). For the researcher who wishes to examine the role metaphors play in the thinking about a target domain, it thus is important to pay attention to the guiding hands of the metaphor makers, as they may use them to set in motion unusual transferences of properties from source to target.

1.5 Conclusion

In this chapter it was argued that if one wishes to offer an adequate analysis of variation in the metaphorical conceptualization of a given target domain, attention must be paid not only to the question what source domains are used to think about this target domain. The sets of correspondences involved in the metaphors also need to receive attention, as do the understanding of the source domain of the maker of the metaphor or the community of which they are part. Finally it must be taken into account what properties of the source domain the audience is encouraged or discouraged to attempt to apply to the metaphor’s target, as the steering hand of the metaphor’s creator may give rise to unconventional implications.

(15)

14

2. Types of metaphor

In this chapter 4 types of motivated metaphor: topic-triggered, topical, language-triggered, and pictorially-triggered metaphors are discussed. These types of metaphor involve a choice of a source domain that has been triggered in various different manners. For example, in topical metaphors, the choice for the source domain is motivated by its topicality (e.g. because it features prominently in the news at that moment). Because the use of metaphors of these four types may influence the range of source domains used to convey something about elections in the editorial cartoons included in the corpus of cartoons that will be examined in this thesis, for example because use of these types of metaphors may prompt cartoonists to consider novel source domains, a discussion of these four types of metaphor is relevant to this thesis. In addition metaphorical thoughts ascribed by the cartoons to other persons are briefly discussed.

2.1 Topic-triggered metaphor

Metaphor makers often compare the target domain that they want to discuss to a source domain that is somehow related to this target. Abadi and Sacerdoti, for example, note that CHESS metaphors are often used to discuss Israeli politicians known to “actually play chess” (2001: 35). Similarly, Burnes (2011: 2168-9) suggests that a metaphorical comparison of John McCain to the Red Baron, the German fighter pilot famous for his successes during World War I, appears to have been motivated by the fact that McCain himself also served as a fighter pilot during the Vietnam War.

Metaphors of this type have been observed by numerous scholars studying metaphor in various types of discourse (e.g. Brône and Feyaerts 2005: 75-99, Kövecses 2005: 237-9, White 2011: 104-8). Cited below are a few examples of the numerous expressions they have analyzed:

- “The Agnelli family is again in the driver’s seat at Fiat” (Brône and Feyaerts 2005: 89) - “The Americanization of Japan’s car industry shifts into higher gear” (Kövecses 2005: 237) - “Trains resume but public trust derailed” (White 2011: 106)

These three examples involve a metaphorical description of BEING IN CONTROL as STEERING, PROGRESS as FORWARD MOVEMENT, and DAMAGING DEVELOPMENTS as IMPEDIMENTS TO TRAVEL, respectively.Steering and shifting into a higher gear, of course, are activities that a car driver engages

in, while travel by train involves rails. Thus, like the comparison of Ehud Barak’s ability to outthink his political opponents to a chess master’s capacity to plan numerous moves ahead and the comparison of McCain to the Red Baron, all three expressions involve the comparison of a target to a source that is in some (literal) fashion related to the metaphor’s target.

Different scholars have used various terms to refer to this phenomenon (i.e. topic-triggered

(16)

15

metaphor (used in e.g. Koller 2004, White 2011), because it appears to have gained more traction than

the alternatives and because it highlights the metaphorical nature of the phenomenon.

As Brône and Feyaerts have pointed out (2005), topic-triggered metaphors do not only occur in verbal language, but are frequently used in editorial cartoons as well. The two cartoons by conservative cartoonist Jay Norwood “Ding” Darling (fig. 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) provide examples of this. The first is about the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project, a relief work project championed by the Democratic Party and Roosevelt as part of his administration’s famous New Deal program designed to combat the economic depression that plagued the world during the 1930s. It invites its interpreters to construe a metaphor that involves the following mappings (as always the verbalization of the metaphor should be seen as an approximation):

ELECTIONEERING IS HUNTING hunted moose  Maine

James Farley (chairmen of the Democratic National Committee) & president Franklin D. Roosevelt  hunters

Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project  bait

Interpreters of the cartoon, especially those familiar with the critical stance that is typical of the genre and Darling’s antagonistic stance towards the administration, will presumably recognize that they are intended to map the property “being offered not out of a genuine desire to help, but for some ulterior motive”, that is strongly associated with BAIT,onto the PASSAMAQUODDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT.8

Although the alleged ulterior motive of the Democrats (i.e. winning Maine’s electoral votes) is less obviously damaging towards the thing that is hunted than a hunter’s desire to kill typically is towards the hunted animal, the dishonesty involved in the BAITING scenario is likely to be considered far more morally reprehensible when it is applied to the domain of ELECTIONEERING, as misleading humans is generally considered a more serious offense than misleading animals.The metaphor can be identified as a topic-triggered one because moose hunting is an activity that is associated with the state of Maine, where the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project was based (and which, according to the cartoon, was the game that the Democrats were after and trying to bait into stepping into a bear trap).

8_{Although Darling was involved with Roosevelt’s presidential administration as head of the U.S. Biological}

Survey during the years 1934-1935, as a cartoonist he was one of the most scathing critics of Roosevelt’s administrations. For years after his brief stint in Washington, he would, according to his biographer David Lendt, half jokingly tell that he suspected he was approached for the position “less for what he could do for wildlife conservation than for what silencing Ding [i.e. Darling, LR] could do for the New Deal” (Lendt 1989 [1979]: 69).

(17)

16

Figure 2.1.1. Darling, Jay Norwood. “Political? No, certainly not.” October 29, 1936. Figure 2.1.2. Darling, Jay Norwood. “Oh what will the harvest be?” July 31, 1936.

The second Darling cartoon conveys a message similar to that of the first cartoon. It suggests that the agricultural relief programs championed by the Democratic Party are not designed to support farmers, but to win votes. In the background, it depicts James Farley, hauling sheaves of grain/human hybrids onto a wagon pulled by a donkey (the animal associated with the Democratic Party). On the foreground, two enormous anthropomorphised grasshoppers are also harvesting sheaves of human/grain hybrids. While the cartoon’s point is similar, a very different metaphor is employed to convey the message this time. Whereas the administration’s alleged efforts to “buy” the elections in Maine are depicted in terms of HUNTING, the similar accusation about the Democrats’ alleged prioritizing of the winning of the farm vote over the care for farmers is instead depicted in terms of HARVESTING,again a source that is clearly related to the metaphor’s target: FARM RELIEF.

As I remarked in the introduction to this chapter, the fact that cartoonists frequently opt to metaphorically compare a target to a source that is somehow related to it, is of interest to us, as it could conceivably prompt them to select “fresh” source domains that are not ordinarily used to discuss this target.

Brône and Feyaerts’ (2005) study of topic-triggered metaphor, however suggests that this is not typically the case. They propose that topic-triggered metaphors are, at an abstract level, instantiations of conventional metaphors. The example cited above, “The Agnelli family is again in the

driver’s seat at Fiat”, for example, relates to the conventional metaphor CONTROLLING IS STEERING, which they in turn describe as an instantiation of DEVELOPMENT IS MOVEMENT. The examples taken from Kövecses’ study: “The Americanization of Japan’s car industry shifts into higher gear”, is related to the same conventional metaphor. It is important to note however, that not all expressions analyzed by Brône and Feyaerts (2005) and the other authors who have discussed topic-triggered

(18)

17

metaphor relate to movement metaphors. For example, Brône and Feyaerts also discuss a large number of topic-triggered instantiations of the conventional metaphor MORE IS UP including: “Airlines feel the pinch as cost of fuel goes sky high” and “U.S. slowdown punctures Michelin’s profits.”

Even if all topic-triggered metaphors presented in editorial cartoons can be seen as instantiations of conventional metaphors at an abstract level, they may still be novel at a more specific level, and differences in metaphorical conceptualization at a more specific level do not necessarily have to be inconsequential variations that only result in subtle differences in the metaphorical “flavour” of an expression. Boers and Demecheleer (1995), for example argue that the “various means of transport” involved in different instantiations of the PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIOR IS MOVEMENT TOWARDS A DESTINATION metaphor, may have different implications, noting that:

motion of a train is more fixed (in its tracks) than that of a ship; horseback riding requires other skills (e.g. balance) than travelling by train; different modes of transport involve different kinds of danger; and so on (Boers and Demecheleer 1995: 680).

Finally let us briefly consider why metaphor makers so often make use of topic-triggered metaphor. In her analysis of the comparison of McCain to the Red Baron, Burnes suggests that these metaphors functions to blur the “distinction between image and reality”. The fact that a metaphor’s source domain is literally linked to the metaphors target could serve to “hide” the figurative nature of the comparison. A similar suggestion is made in Forceville (2007). White (2011) and Brône and Feyaerts (2005) instead suggest that the appeal of topic-triggered metaphor lies in its perceived wittiness. In light of the fact that, in editorial cartoons, outlandish and fantastic scenario’s are the rule and metaphors are abundant, while anything that might be called “realism” is a rare exception, it seems unlikely that cartoonists specifically resort to topic-triggered metaphor out of a desire to hide the figurative nature of their comparisons. This claim sounds much more plausible for e.g. advertisers or the producers of a mainstream narrative film.

2.2 Topical metaphor

After discussing topic-triggered metaphor, Kövecses (2005: 239-241) turns his attention to what he describes as a related phenomenon: the fact that “people make more extensive use of a source domain when that particular source domain becomes more salient for them.” He cites a study by Boers (1999) that shows that in Western European countries, the source domain HEALTH is more prevalent in discussions about the ECONOMY during the cold winter months, when people typically experience more illnesses (i.e. expressions such as “healthy company”, “economic remedy”, etc. are used more often during these months), while other source domains showed no such fluctuation. Similarly

(19)

18

Blankenship and Kang in a study of the metaphors used in press reporting on presidential debates during the American presidential elections of 1984, speculate that the particularly abundant use of baseball metaphors in descriptions of some debates, may have been the result of a congruent scheduling of these debates and important (baseball) playoff matches (1991: 309).

In editorial cartoons, metaphorical comparisons that involve a source domain that featured prominently in the news at the time the cartoon was first published appear to be particularly abundant. For example, after the Spanish king Alfonso XII fled Spain in April 1931, cartoonist S.S. Byck in the

Brooklyn Times compared the economic depression that plagued the U.S. during the 1930s to a king

whose reign also was about to come to an end in a cartoon titled: “another ruler whose throne is shaky”. I have previously introduced the term “topical metaphors” to describe such metaphors (Reehorst 2012). Another example of a topical metaphor can be found in the cartoon by Eugene Elderman (fig. 2.2.1). In this unusual 5 panel cartoon, printed on August 1, 1936, the day of the opening of the 1936 Summer Olympics, the Olympic tournament was used as a source domain to comment upon various aspects of the political scene (e.g. the efforts of consumers faced with soaring food prices are metaphorically compared to the challenges faced by an athlete who has to jump an impossibly high pole vault).

Figure 2.2.1 Eugene Elderman. “Speaking of Olympics.” The Washington Post. August 1, 1936.

Metaphorical comparisons prompted by the temporary pervasiveness of the source domain in the intended audience’s shared cognitive environment, like topic-triggered metaphors, could potentially result in novel metaphors if the source domain that is at the center of attention at the time the metaphor

(20)

19

is created is not normally used to discuss the target. However several topical metaphors related to calendar events, such as Halloween and Christmas, have themselves also become clichés in editorial cartoons. For example the depiction of politicians who paint exaggerated pictures of their political opponents as trick-or-treaters who dress up as horrific versions of each other to scare the electorate has been a staple of editorial cartoons for many decades now (see e.g. figure 2.2.2 and 2.2.3).

Figure 2.2.2 Eugene Elderman. “Halloween scares.” The Washington Post. October 31, 1932. Figure 2.2.3 Gary Varvel. “Speaking of Olympics.” Indianapolis Star. October 19, 2004. Cited in Conners (2005: 483).

The abundance of topical metaphors in editorial cartoons, we may speculate, probably results in part from the fact that these domains simply are cognitively available not only to the cartoons’ intended audience, but also to the creator of the metaphor (i.e. these source domains are likely to be among the first to be considered by a cartoonist searching his mind for a source domain that would result in an apt comparison). In part it is probably motivated by the desire shared by many artists to create works of art that are optimally relevant at the time when their audience experiences their works (see e.g. Forceville’s 2005 account of the cartoons in Dutch cartoonist Peter van Straaten’s Zeurkalender calendar). However the prevalence of these metaphors in editorial cartoons specifically may also be the result of an extra effort made by editorial cartoonists to enhance the news-related character of their cartoons, driven by the fact that this news-related quality is one of the defining characteristics of the genre and that this quality justifies the place of the editorial cartoons on the editorial pages of the newspapers.

2.3 Language-triggered metaphor

In addition to the metaphors triggered by the existence of a link between the metaphor’s source and its target or the topicality of its source domain, which have been discussed in the previous two sections, editorial cartoons also often present metaphors that are, in a similar manner, motivated or triggered by language-related reasons.

(21)

20

Numerous cartoons, for example, are inspired by idioms. The metaphorical comparison of the votes of labourers, who are metonymically represented as a factory worker who sits underneath an apple tree to a fruit to be plucked, presented in a Jesse Cargill cartoon titled “The fruits of labor” (figure 2.3.1), for example, clearly is inspired by the age-old expression that makes up the cartoon’s title. It should be noted that the Democratic and Republican Parties are depicted respectively as a Donkey and an Elephant – the so-called Party animals – as these parties usually are in American editorial cartoons.

In other cartoons, a comparison is triggered by a word that has multiple meanings, one of which is related to the metaphor’s target and one of which is related to its source (homonym). Jay Norwood Darling’s 1936 cartoon, “If they’d put their tickets together they might go places” (see fig. 2.3.1), is an example of one such cartoon. In this cartoon, the Republican Party and conservative Democrats, opposed to Roosevelt’s New Deal reform program, are depicted as two travellers who stand around on a train station, both in the possession of only half a train ticket. In the background stands an announcer who indicates that the train to Washington is about to depart.

Figure 2.3.1 Jesse Cargill. The Berkeley Daily Gazette. September 7, 1936.

Figure 2.3.2 Jay Norwood Darling. “If they’d put their tickets together they might go places.” June 8, 1936.

The conservative Democrats, who were concentrated in the Southern states, are depicted as a woman in an elaborate dress, of the type associated with the then century-old stereotypical image of the “Southern belle”, the young unmarried daughters of the South’s “aristocrats”. The Republican party is depicted as an Elephant (as is conventional in American editorial cartoons) who is dressed as a human male, in gentlemanly clothes. By picturing the two groups in this manner, it subtly invites the cartoon’s interpreters to think about their relationship in terms of COURTSHIP and MARRIAGE.

(22)

21

Less subtly, the cartoon also invites us to think about the election and the role of these two groups therein in terms of a JOURNEY BY TRAIN TOWARDS WASHINGTON (I.E. THE CAPITOL AND THE WHITE HOUSE).It is this second, more central, metaphor that involves a homonym: the word “ticket”. Within the context of American politics, this word has, since the early 18th century, been used to refer to the “list of candidates put up by a party or faction” (Sperber & Trittschuh 1962: 454). The cartoon’s suggestion that the disgruntled Southern Democrats “combine their ticket” with the Republicans thus has a literal meaning as well as a metaphorical one.

Apart from homonyms and idioms, resemblances between the spelling or pronunciation of words or phrases associated with the metaphor’s target and its source also serve as a motivation for many of the metaphors presented in editorial cartoons. For example New York Times cartoonist Edwin Marcus’s 1936 cartoon, “The speech combers”, features a metaphor motivated by the resemblance between pronunciation of the words “beach” and “speech”: it depicts Roosevelt’s various political opponents as beachcombers, who painstakingly examine a beach, that is identified by a verbal label as “The President’s message”, i.e. Roosevelt’s “Annual Message to Congress,” of January 3, 1936. Similarly, The Times-Tribune’s cartoonist John Cole’s 2012 cartoon “Preventive measures”, features a metaphorical comparison of Rick Santorum, who ran as a candidate in the Republican primary elections of 2012, to a contraceptive pill, motivated by the similarities between the words “pregnancy” and “presidency”.

Figure 2.3.3 Edwin Marcus. “The speech combers.” The New York Times. January 5, 1936. Figure 2.3.4 John Cole. “Preventive measures.” June 8, 1936.

It is important to emphasize that the term “language-triggered metaphor”, as I use it here, does not (as it may unfortunately seem to imply) relate to the means by which a metaphor is presented. Indeed a skilled maker of a language-triggered metaphor does not necessarily have to use any written or spoken language to construe a metaphor. Such a metaphor maker may construct what film and art theorist Noël Carroll has termed a “verbal image”, an image that wordlessly “evoke[s] words or strings of words (phrases, sentences, clichés or proverbs)” (Carroll 1996 [1980]: 186). An unsubtle and thus

(23)

22

readily apparent example of such a “verbal image” in an editorial cartoon is presented in the

Chattanooga Times Free Press cartoonists Clay Bennet’s 2012 cartoon (fig. 2.3.5). In this cartoon,

which mirrors Norman Rockwell’s famous “Freedom from want” painting (see fig. 2.3.6), Romney and his fellow Republicans are served crow, rather than turkey for dinner. Through this visual depiction, Bennett prompts his audience to recall the American colloquialism “to eat crow” (which means “to be humiliated”). The cartoon’s allusion to Rockwell’s painting will be discussed in greater detail in the next section, on pictorially-triggered metaphor.

Figure 2.3.5 Clay Bennett. “Untitled.” The Chattanooga Times Free Press. November 21, 2012. Figure 2.3.6 Norman Rockwell. “Freedom from want.” The Saturday Evening Post. March 6, 1943.

When I do refer to metaphors construed through specific communicative means, I will use the terminology introduced by Forceville (1996, 2006a). The term “pictorial metaphor” will be used to refer to metaphors presented entirely through pictorial means, “verbal metaphor” if the metaphor’s maker only employed verbal means to invite us to construe a metaphor and verbo-pictorial metaphor to refer to metaphors construed through a combination of both pictorial and verbal means. The terms “language-triggered” metaphor and “pictorially-triggered” metaphor are used instead to refer to metaphors motivated by reasons related to language or pictures.

Like the desire to create topic-driven and topical metaphors, the tendency among cartoonists to draw inspiration from accidental homonyms and chance resemblances between words associated with different conceptual domains, when constructing the metaphors presented in their cartoons, may prompt cartoonists to create some of their more original comparisons, while drawing inspiration from linguistic expressions may also conceivably cause cartoonists to replicate conventional metaphors.

(24)

23

2.4 Pictorially-triggered metaphor

Editorial cartoons do not only contain references to idioms and phrases, but sometimes, e.g. in the case of the Bennett cartoon discussed in the previous section, also include allusions to well-known images. Similarly, there exists a pictorial equivalent of the metaphors inspired by similarities in pronunciation or spelling, in the form of metaphors inspired by visual resemblances.

Allusions to one specific well-known image, “Raising the flag on Iwo Jima” (fig. 2.4.1), a photograph by Joe Rosenthal taken on February 23, 1945, have been discussed extensively in Edwards and Winkler (1997) and Schilperoord (2013). Edwards and Winkler have shown that cartoonists have often alluded to the image to comment on a plethora of subjects, ranging from the First Gulf War (fig. 2.4.2), to flag burning, to the position of women serving in the United States army (fig. 2.4.3). Edwards and Winkler rightly insist that while “some of the parodied references to the Iwo Jima image are metaphoric”, most are not, while all of the cartoons (both the laudatory and the critical ones) use the Iwo Jima image as a normative yardstick (Edwards and Winkler 1997: 294). Schilperoord (2013) discusses a host of additional examples of Iwo Jima cartoons and concurs with Edwards and Winkler’s assessment that these cartoons invite their interpreters to consider whether their topic meets the moral standard set by the heroic Iwo Jima soldiers and provides an account of how this process may be modelled in terms of Blending Theory. He states that he is uncertain whether the cartoons involve metaphor (Schilperoord 2013: 200). I believe Edwards and Winkler (1997) and Schilperoord (2013) rightly stress that not all visual allusions encountered in editorial cartoons should be interpreted as metaphorical comparisons in which the original image stands for a source domain that is to be mapped onto the metaphor’s target.

Figure 2.4.1 Joe Rosenthal. “Raising the flag on Iwo Jima.” February 23, 1945.

Figure 2.4.2 Richard Morin. Cartoon. August 20, 1990. Cited in: Edwards and Winkler (1997: 303). Figure 2.4.3 Bill Schorr. Cartoon. Cited in: Edwards and Winkler (1997: 303).

(25)

24

Figure 2.4.4 Clay Bennett. “Untitled.” The Chattanooga Times Free Press. July 5, 2012. Figure 2.4.5 Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze. “Washington Crossing the Delaware.” 1851.

Another of Bennett’s cartoons on the 2012 election confirms that the use of iconic images as a normative yardstick in editorial cartoons is not limited to cartoons that involve the Iwo Jima photograph. In this cartoon (fig. 2.4.4), Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze’s famous 1851 painting “Washington Crossing the Delaware” (fig. 2.4.5) is used to condemn the (self-)destructive behaviour of the American Tea Party movement – it is depicted as a figure with tea-bags attached to his head, who is actively trying to make the boat sink by drilling holes into it – in a manner similar to the one described by Edwards and Winkler (1997) and Schilperoord (2013). While not all cartoons that make use of visual allusion contain metaphors, there definitely are, as Edwards and Winkler (1997) have acknowledged, some that do, and this cartoon arguably is one of them (likening the NATION to a SHIP and the TEA PARTYMOVEMENT to a SABOTEUR and a TRAITOR).

Figure 2.4.6 Jack Knox. “Slowing him up considerably.” The New York Times. February 23, 1936. Figure 2.4.7 Grover Page. “Tough going.” The New York Times. August 23, 1936.

The images to which editorial cartoons allude do not only include iconic pictures of the type discussed so far. In the two very similar cartoons by Jack Knox and Grover Page (figures 2.4.6 & 2.4.7), printed

(26)

25

in the February and August of 1936, respectively, we encounter examples of another type of allusion. In these cartoons, the conventional depiction of economic growth in terms of falling and rising lines on charts and graphs (and more specifically the graphs indicative of strong economic growth that were being published during that time), which according to CMT itself is motivated by the underlying conceptual metaphors MORE IS UP and LESS IS DOWN (Lakoff 1993: 241), is referenced and used to justify the representation of the opponents of the Roosevelt administration in the presidential election as travellers who experience an uphill journey. Again we see that the image that is referenced in a pictorially-triggered metaphor does not necessarily have to stand for the metaphor’s source domain.

One example of a cartoon that contains a metaphorical comparison that is motivated by a visual resemblance is Silvey Ray’s “What will the harvest be?” (fig. 2.4.8). This 1936 cartoon invites its interpreters to construe a metaphor that might be verbalized as THE GARNERING OF THE SO-CALLED “FARM VOTE” IS THE HARVESTING OF GRAIN. The visual resemblance by which this metaphor is motivated is that between an elephant’s trunk and the blade of a scythe. (This metaphor also is a clear example of a topic-driven metaphor, as it is motivated by the existence of a link between the metaphor’s target and source: the fact that farmers harvest crops.)

Figure 2.4.8 Silvey J. Ray. “What will the harvest be?” The New York Times. September 27, 1936. Figure 2.4.9 Cyrus Hungerford. “Cut and dried.” The New York Times. August 22, 1936.

Finally there is a type of metaphor that highlights the pictorial nature of written language (and thereby the limitations of a distinction between language and pictures). These metaphors involve the visual similarity between a word associated with one of the two domains involved in the metaphorical comparison and something else that is associated with the other domain. Cyrus Hungerford 1936 cartoon “Cut and dried” (fig. 2.4.9), for example, exploits the similarity between the word “Roosevelt” and a donkey to justify the comparison of Roosevelt to dried (donkey) meat that is ready to be served (alluding to the expression “cut and dried”, in recognition of the fact that Roosevelt’s renomination as Democratic presidential candidate at the Democratic National convention that took place at that moment was already a foregone conclusion). It should be noted that the visual similarity is largely the

(27)

26

result of the manner in which the word is portrayed in the cartoon and for the most part “created” by the cartoonist, rather than pre-existent.9

2.5 Ascribed metaphor

This section is devoted to a discussion of what Philip Eubanks (2000) has termed “ascribed metaphor”. The type of metaphor discussed in this section is different from the types of metaphor discussed in the four preceding sections. The defining characteristic of all four of these types of metaphors was that their presence was triggered by a specific type of motivation (e.g. the topicality of the metaphor’s source domain). Ascribed metaphors are related to a different issue: the question to whom an assertion or belief should be ascribed, i.e. what narratologists call focalization.

Ascribed metaphors, as defined by Eubanks, consists of assertions about the metaphorical beliefs of others or the metaphorical prisms through which they view the world. Written texts, as Eubanks emphasizes, abound in these metaphors. Within the field of media studies, for example, the first chapter of David Bordwell’s Making Meaning opens with an assertion about the metaphorical beliefs of critics working within the (then) dominant framework:

To speak of hidden meanings, levels of meaning, and revealing meanings evokes the dominant framework within which critics understand interpretation. The artwork or text is taken to be a container into which the artist has stuffed meanings for the perceiver to pull out. Alternatively, an archaeological analogy treats the text as having strata, with layers or deposits of meaning that must be excavated. (Bordwell 1989: 2)

Similarly, Dutch philosopher Bas Haring, in a book on species diversity repeatedly ascribes metaphorical beliefs to others. For example, he at one point suggests that many people think of nature as oiled machine, made up of indispensible parts. He then offers an extended description of the nature of such machines, discussing the make-up of a car as an example:

“If you take a spark plug out of the motor, the car does not run anymore. Cut one random tire and I won’t dare to drive the car anymore. A car is a collection of vital parts. (Haring 2011: 47, citation translated from the Dutch version).

Often, such an assertion is followed by a comment about the flaws or limitations of the described metaphorical view; Haring, for example goes on to write: “But nature is different than a car. Most notably, it has been formed by a very different process.” (ibid). Thus it is often crucial to

(28)

27

properly distinguish between ascribed metaphors and other types of metaphor, as they have drastically different implications.

In recent years a number of cartoons appeared which did not clearly articulate that the comparisons presented in it were intended to be attributed to someone else. These include a cartoon published on the cover of The New Yorker’s cover of July 2008, titled “The Politics of Fear”, which depicts president Barack Obama as a Muslim and his wife Michelle as a Black Panther militant, which was, according to its creator and the magazine’s staff intended to parody the extreme and baseless accusations made by the American right (Self 2011)

Examples of ascribed metaphors presented in editorial cartoons include the numerous depictions of James Farley, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who oversaw Roosevelt’s reelection campaign in 1936, as with a filled bag, after he stated that the election was “in the bag” (fig. 2.5.1). A more recent example can be found in an untitled Bennett cartoon, printed in June 2012, which depicts the Seal of the President of the United States as a dart board, in an attempt to ascribe a view of the Democratic President as a target to his Republican opponents (fig. 2.5.2).

Figure 2.5.1 Jay Norwood Darling. “Must be that Kansas spinach.” June 13, 1936.1936 Figure 2.5.2 Clay Bennett. “Untitled.” The Chattanooga Times Free Press. June 21, 2012.

Recognizing ascribed metaphors is crucial as ascribed metaphors have a tendency to highlight the ways in which the metaphor’s source does not resemble the metaphor’s target. Their implications thus are usually diametrically opposed to those of ordinary metaphors involving the same source and target.

2.6 Conclusion

In this chapter we have seen that the metaphors presented in editorial cartoons often involve comparisons to source domains that are linked to the metaphor’s target and to source domains that featured prominently in the news at the moment that a cartoon was published. Similarly, the presence of many of the metaphors presented is motivated either by reasons related to verbal idioms rhyme or

(29)

28

other linguistic phenomena or by a visual resemblance or other reasons related to the realm of the pictorial. These various motivations for the construal of metaphors are considered potential sources of originality and variation within the use of metaphor, as the restrictions that they impose on cartoonists may prompt them to present unusual metaphors. Additionally, it has been noted that it is important to examine whether cartoons endorse a metaphorical view presented in a cartoon or attempt to ascribe it to someone else, as cartoons of the two different types may have drastically different implications; most notably, ascribed metaphors have a tendency to showcase the shortcomings of a metaphorical view, rather than strengthen its perceived validity.

(30)

29

3. Previous research on the metaphorical conceptualization of

elections

In this chapter a survey of previous research on the metaphorical conceptualization of elections is provided. First eight studies focused on verbal forms of metaphor are discussed in chronological order: Howe (1988), Blankenship and Kang (1991), Abadi and Sacerdoti (2001), Wei (2000, 2003), Scheithauer (2007), Burnes (2011) and Berberović (2013). The attention of each of these studies is focused on the recurrent and conventional use of metaphors rather than on novel metaphors, an approach inspired by the Lakoffian sentiment that “the repeated and systematic use of particular types of metaphor may be taken to reveal the fundamental attitudes and concepts of such speakers” (Howe 1998: 88). In four of these studies a small foray into the realm of pictorial and multimodal forms of metaphor is made, but all eight are primarily devoted to the analysis of verbal metaphors.

The survey of these eight studies focused on verbal forms of metaphors is followed by a discussion of Conners (2005), a study devoted to the allusions presented in editorial cartoons. As all the ‘allusions’ she discusses can be re-verbalized as metaphors, this study is relevant to this thesis.

Each of these studies will first be discussed in a separate section, except for the two studies by Wei, which are instead covered in a single section, as they are closely related to each other. In each section the methodology and scope of the study is be briefly discussed first, followed by a survey of the findings presented in the study that pertain to (1) the source domains used to discuss elections, (2) cultural or historical variation in the understanding of these source domains, (3) the mappings involved in election metaphors and (4) the steering of the process of the mapping of properties from source onto target by the makers of the metaphors.

In the conclusion to this chapter I will discuss trends and differences in the findings of the different studies and underline their most important implications for this thesis.

3.1 Howe (1988)

In Howe (1988) the use of SPORT and WAR as metaphorical source domains in writing about American politics in American newspapers and periodicals during the period 1980-1985 is examined. Although Howe also analyzes the use of SPORT and WAR to describe other aspects of American politics, such as the passing of legislation through the two congressional houses, he mainly discusses metaphors that are used to talk about the target domain ELECTIONS.

Howe starts by analyzing and comparing metaphors used to discuss politics that draw on four different sports as source domains: HORSE-RACING, BOXING, FOOTBALL and BASEBALL.He states that the first twosource domains are primarily used to discuss two specific areas within the larger field of politics – HORSE-RACING metaphors, Howe claims, are mainly used to discuss primary elections,

(31)

30

which “like horse-races have many contestants but only one winner” (ibid: 90), while BOXING is primarily used as a source domain to offer descriptions of debates during which two major candidates running for a political office face each other “one-on-one”. The use of FOOTBALL and BASEBALL metaphors, Howe states, is more generally prevalent throughout political discourse.

The fact that football and baseball, unlike horse-racing and boxing, are team sports appears to be crucial, as Howe shows that expressions which emphasize that political parties and politicians and their staff form teams consist of players who share a common goal, are widely used. He distinguishes two types of “team” metaphors: the first consist of metaphors that highlight the competition between different teams and the second consists of metaphors that emphasize the internal cooperation between members of the same team.10

After discussing the different uses of team metaphors, Howe devotes some attention to the use of sports metaphors that are related to the status attached to different sporting divisions (e.g. minor

league and major league baseball divisions) or variants of a sport (hardball/softball, heavyweight/lightweight boxing). He states that the ‘leap’ by a politician from a minor political arena

(i.e. local or state politics) towards the national political scene is often discussed in terms related to the transference of an athlete from a minor sports division to a more prominent one (e.g. from the lesser “minor leagues” to the more prestigious “major leagues” in baseball or from the “little leagues”, where younger athletes compete, to “big leagues”, where adult competitors face each other). He also notes that the word “hardball” is used to talk about gruelling situations (e.g. a particularly sour and demanding debate is described as “really hardball”) and intense efforts (hardball lobbying), while the word “softball” conversely is used to describe things that require (too) little effort (e.g. innocuous questions asked during a press conference are described as “softball questions”). According to Howe these expressions – which reflect a derogatory stance towards softball, the variant of baseball played primarily by women – particularly blatantly imply that politics is a men’s game. Howe claims that this implication is also shared (if less transparently so) by most of the other widely prevalent SPORT and WAR metaphors.

Howe states that expressions related to the scoring systems of various sports are used to make evaluative remarks about politicians and their behaviour and ideas. Politicians may “score touchdowns or hit home runs” or make “bad calls”, while a candidate participating in a presidential debate may deliver “a knockout” or take a bout “on points”. He claims that appraisals that involve expressions related to baseball (e.g. the description of a politician as a “utility ballplayer” rather than “an all-star”, or the remark that the “administration has batted .900, and that’ll keep you in the ball park”) tend to be the most precise, but also less vivid and dramatic than other SPORT metaphors.

10_{It may be noted that the two types of team metaphors distinguished by Howe do not involve conflicting}

correspondences and that it would be possible to characterize a candidate and his staff as different members of a team and simultaneously represent their effort to win an election as a struggle against another team.

Metaphor in American editorial cartoons about the presidential elections of 1936 and 2012