Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse PDF
Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse PDF
Mythos Magazin:
Politisches Framing
STICHWORTE ABSTRACT
cognitive linguistics This paper analyses applications of “framing” theory to figurative political discourse. It reviews in
frame detail Lakoff et al.’s Cognitive approach, which has been the main paradigm for metaphor framing
heart of Europe studies in the last decades and highlights its objectives, advantages and limitations. Specific attention
metaphor
is paid to the relationship with Fillmore’s “Frame” theory developed in the 1970s. By going back to
nurturant parent
morality
this source, the crucial issue of framing reception, i.e. the difference between frame activation and
strict father morality frame acceptance is made salient. The third part provides a case study illustrating this difference by
scenario charting the discourse history of the metaphorical slogan ‘Britain at the heart of Europe’, which was
widely accepted at its launch as framing UK policy but lost acceptance over the course of three decades
(whilst retaining its potential for activation). In conclusion, it is argued that receptive acceptance is the
product of enriching schematic frames to rhetorically and pragmatically elaborated scenarios.
1. Introduction
Even though the term framing did not feature prominently category ubiquitously. We can use Lakoff and Wehling’s
in Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors we live by, 1 it has treatment as a starting point to discuss its implications
become a key-word in Cognitive Metaphor Analyses since before investigating an exemplary case study from
the 1980s. In recent years its usage has indeed contemporary British political discourse and then
skyrocketed: in two research reviews, Brugman et al. have outlining some perspectives for further applications.
counted over 300 studies from the last 15 years that focus
on experimental research (Brugman et al. 2017, 2018), 2. Metaphors and the ‘Political Divide’
and a complementary review compared 64 experimental
studies with 45 analyses that were oriented towards In the first chapter of Your Brain’s Politics, entitled
Critical Discourse Analysis (Boeynaems et al. 2017). Normal Thought: Reasoning in Metaphors, Wehling and
There are many more empirical and theoretical studies of Lakoff go over well-known axioms of cognitive semantics
framing, including Lakoff’s 2004 book: Don’t Think of an and “Conceptual Metaphor Theory” (CMT), as developed
Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. 2 In since the first publication of Metaphors We Live By in
his latest, popular-cum-research-based presentation of the 1980. Metaphors are structuring principles of thought that
Cognitive approach to Political Metaphor, Your Brain’s organize most of our experiences through mappings
Politics. How the Science of Mind Explains the Political between familiar (source) and unfamiliar (target) domains
Divide (2016), Lakoff, together with co-author Elisabeth of knowledge. Source domains are ultimately based on
Wehling, gives a detailed introduction into framing in the physical experiences that we start acquiring after birth and
central chapter (6, Political Framing) and applies the that are continuously reinforced, building “neural
1 2
The term framing does in fact appear in the last chapter of Metaphors we live Cf. Boyd 2013; Burgers et al. 2016; Coulson 2000, Debras and l’Hôte 2015;
by, highlighting its ideological power: “Political and economic ideologies are Degani 2015; Lehrer and Kittay 1992; Plastina 2018; Reijnierse et al. 2015;
framed in metaphorical terms. […] A metaphor in a political or economic Sandkcioglu 2000; Sinding, 2017; Sullivan 2013.
system, by virtue of what it hides, can lead to human degradation” (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980/2003, 236).
Andreas Musolff: Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse. In: Mythos-Magazin: Politisches Framing 1 (2019), online unter: http//www.mythos-
magazin.de/politisches_framing/am_metaphor-framing.pdf.
Metaphor Framing in Political Discourse
circuits”, whose workings are automatic, unconscious and take it seriously enough” (2016, 67) and fail to connect
universal, at least as regards “primary” mappings such as their statements to their own “nurturant” value-system.
MORE IS UP, and AFFECTION IS WARMTH. 3 Complex Lakoff and Wehling’s explanation of this cognitive-
metaphors, on the other hand, which are built from several communicative ‘handicap’ of progressive vs. conservative
primary metaphors, can vary cross-culturally. politicians forms the main subject of the three central
Metaphorical communication has two main effects: it chapters that also contain the gist of Lakoff’s framing
activates the neuro-physiologically based metaphoric theory, (5) Deciding Politics: Why People Vote Values, (6)
structures in our minds and these in turn provide a Political Framing: Value Laden Words, (7) “God Bless
selection filter for understanding target concepts by America”: Religion, Metaphor, and Politics. First, Lakoff
simultaneously hiding some of their aspects and confronts head-on the - in his view - flawed assumption
highlighting others. Hence, an unconscious choice is made that people vote for candidates based on factual details
for a particular interpretation of reality, which seems (2016, 68). Against it he maintains that “factual”
unquestionable to its users. Lakoff concedes that this spell information always needs to be incorporated into a
of metaphorical thought can “theoretically” be broken conceptual “frame”, which provides a “larger
through “rejection” of commonly accepted metaphors and interpretative template” for them to become meaningful:
conscious construction of alternatives, but that in “So if you want to communicate the pressing relevance of
everyday political reality people often “do not do any such certain political facts, then the first thing you want to do is
thing” (2016, 25). make sure that you’re using frames in which those facts
Chapters 2 to 4, How to Parent a Nation: The Role of actually make sense” (2016, 75).
Idealized Family Models for Politics; Moral Politics Lakoff and Wehling’s chief example for the power of
Theory: The Strict Father and Nurturant Parent Models; political framing is the conservative argument in favor of
and Morality, Times Two: How we Acquire and Navigate “tax relief”, which presupposes the notion that taxes are a
two Moral Systems, introduce the two “idealized cognitive metaphorical “burden” that is imposed on taxpayers and
models” (ICMs) of Public Morality in the USA, i.e. the hinders them from engaging in optimal competition and
“Strict Father” and “Nurturant Parent” versions of the pursuit of their own interests and the “Strict Father”-
NATION-AS-FAMILY metaphor. 4 These models are not just inspired ideal of maximum self-reliance. Lakoff rightly
superficially different versions of one and the same points out that in the real-life political context of the USA
metaphor; rather, they represent diametrically opposed the “relief” frame “hides […] the fact that people who are
worldviews that inform the fundamental divide in US economically successful have built that success largely on
political cultures, as epitomized by the Republican and the basis of the tax-supported public infrastructure” (2016,
Democrat party politics. Both models reflect fundamental 85). This is a convincing example for metaphorical
experiences and interests, i.e. social dominance, self- framing as the “relief” metaphor’s reasoning power
discipline and competitiveness on the one hand and on the derives from the ‘anti-public’ bias of the STRICT FATHER
other, social empathy, tolerance and mutual responsibility. frame, in which facts about taxation are embedded. Once
Both morality models have a basic evidentiality and the ‘relief’ metaphor is accepted for the discussion of tax
legitimacy in people’s social experience and are issues, the outcome of arguments about them can be in
accessible in principle to every citizen. Whilst they little doubt. ‘Lightening a burden’ is generally regarded as
exclude each other as ICMs, in the reality of everyday a good thing, and the hidden knowledge that much of the
moral reasoning and political competition they are ‘added value’ of individual or corporate enterprises is in
effectively deployed side by side, without their users fact owed to a public infrastructure plays no further role.
necessarily realizing that they “endorse both models in Similarly predetermined pseudo-arguments are then
different areas of their [own] lives” (2016, 66). Lakoff and listed for US debates about immigration, terrorism and
Wehling also stress that the two models are not abortion (2016, 86–87). On all these issues, conservative
determined so much by specific attitudes, gender roles, or slogans and arguments have an advantage, according to
upbringing, but mainly by their more or less efficient use Lakoff, because they link relevant topical information to
in public discourse. Here US conservatives have a huge one-sidedly value-laden strict father frame versions that
advantage over liberals because they are more competent are presented as common-sensical and even extend to
in using the STRICT FATHER model, whereas “many religion. As an example of the latter, Wehling and Lakoff
progressives do not always understand this mechanism or contrast the two opposite versions of the Biblical story of
3
In line with conventions in cognitive linguistic literature, concepts including debate see Ahrens 2011; Cienki 2005, 2008; Degani 2015; Musolff 2016, 25–
conceptual metaphors, are indicated by small capitals. 31.
4
The distinction of these two morality models has been developed by Lakoff in
numerous publications, e.g. Lakoff 1996, 2004, 2006; for critical testing and
Abraham and Isaac that they were told in German and nature of language (Fillmore 1976). Framing pervades
American schools respectively. In one version, God tests every form of language as “particular words or speech
Abraham’s obedience by demanding him to sacrifice his formulas, or particular grammatical choices, are
son in earnest (and then magnanimously prevents the associated in memory with particular frames, in such a
sacrifice from going ahead after Abraham has proved his way that exposure to the linguistic form […] activates in
loyalty), whereas in the opposite version the sacrifice is a the perceiver’s mind the particular frame – activation of
test of the father’s “moral compass”, which he fails by the frame, by turn, enhancing access to other linguistic
attempting the sacrifice, so that God has to intervene and material that is associated with the same frame” (Fillmore
rescue the son (2016, 92–96). As regards God’s own role 1976, 25).
in this sordid business, the two versions respectively fit Crucially, Fillmore speaks of “activation”, not of
the opposing STRICT FATHER - NURTURANT PARENT acceptance. The fact that a frame is activated in a
frames: here the authoritarian father-God that demands perceiver’s awareness horizon, does not entail its
human sacrifice; there the nurturing, caring, ‘motherly’ acceptance or wholesale adoption. It can be explicitly
God who prevents infanticide. rejected, ironically subverted or replaced by alternative
The last two chapters, Words with no single meaning: frames. As Lakoff and Wehling themselves point out and
Communication and Contested Concepts and “Once upon exemplify through their own defence of “nurturant”
a time”: the Fairytale of Objective Journalism, draw morality, counter-framing against a preceding frame is
further conclusions from the basic premise of the frame- always possible. But how can we then distinguish more
dependency of meanings: words have no “objective” and less important or more and less dominant/influential
meanings, due to the fact that “there is practically no frames? An appeal such as Lakoff’s (2004) imperative
morality-free language in political discourse” (2016, 119). Know Your Values and Frame the Debate clearly assumes
As a consequence, Lakoff demands a “more ‘conscious’ that it is possible to make one frame or set of frames –
journalism”, underpinned by the demand for a preferably one’s own – dominant, if not exclusive, in the
requirement of “basic cognitive science” training in respective discourse community. It implies a
journalism school (2016, 120–122). Lakoff and Wehling’s differentiation between simply using frames, which,
main concern is not to preach a particular political “truth” according to Cognitive Semantics is indeed inevitable for
but to educate their readers to understand the moral any meaningful communication because frames are
relevance of political language and disperse the myth that constitutive for cognition (Lakoff 1987, 68–76; Kövecses
facts can be known “objectively” on their own in terms of 2015, 36–38; Taylor 1995, 81–92), and framing in the
a (fictitious) “morality-free language” (2016, 119). more emphatic sense of establishing a particular set of
This brings us back to the central insight into the power frames as the dominant one in the public political debate,
of framing, which is indeed constitutive for any theory of thus setting its agenda as well as target topics and values,
moral-political argumentation as based on conceptual and influencing its outcome. It is the latter sense that
metaphors. The authors supply not one but three sources Lakoff relies on in his politically focused 2004 and 2016
for framing theories: the linguistic concept developed by publications, thus going decisively beyond the mere
Charles Fillmore, the socio-psychological one assertion of the existence and use of frames. An account
propounded by Erving Goffman (1974), and the AI-based of framing in this emphatic sense has to perform a double
one outlined by Marvin Minsky (Lakoff Wehling 2016, task, i.e., 1) to identify and describe the existing frames
75, note 32), in addition to the above-mentioned neuro- for a target topic, including the emergence of a new frame
physiological finding of “mirror neurons” that are and 2) to diachronically analyse their discursive
hypothesized to underlie both empathy and figurative development through semantic-pragmatic exploitation
framing effects (through simultaneous stimulation of and contestation so as to demonstrate the possible
physiologically distant brain regions (cf. 2016, 61–64), dominance of one frame or a set of frames over others. In
Gallese and Lakoff 2005; for critical evaluation cf. the following section I provide a case study that aims at
Hickock 2014). Here we will focus on Fillmore’s theory, providing the outline of such an account for both frame
which is the main linguistic/semantic one. In his two emergence and frame development by analysing a
seminal articles cited by Lakoff and Wehling, Fillmore metaphoric slogan that has been developed for more than
introduced the concept of “frame” as an essential category 25 years in British political discourse, i.e. the formulation
for a theory of meaning that aims at modeling Britain at the heart of Europe. 5
understanding (Fillmore 1985, 222) for a theory of the
5
The basis for my analysis is a multilingual corpus of figurative press texts on British-German) and discourse-historical perspectives see Musolff 2004b, 2013.
EU-politics (EUROMETA) that goes back to 1990. Overall, EUROMETA is Its (British) English sample has 250 texts that contain 292 tokens of the heart of
currently 689.000 words large and has more than 2900 separate text entries. For Europe metaphor. Just one third (32%) of all tokens are used by the respective
a general overview and analysis of EUROMETA see Musolff 2004a; for journalists as primary authors, whereas 68% of all occurrences allude to the
detailed analyses of the Britain at the heart of Europe slogan in comparative (i.e.
3. Framing and de-framing: the curious case of the contrasting his March speech with his negotiation results:
HEART OF EUROPE the Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, asked him how he could
“claim to be at the heart of Europe when, because of his
3.1 The rise, fall and resurrection of a metaphor across actions, our country is not even part of the key decisions
varying frames that will shape the Europe of the future” and the leader of
the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, alleged that
The phrase at the heart of Europe meaning ‘at the centre
Major had “condemned this country to be semi-detached
of the “European Union”’ (until 1993, “European
from [the heart]” (Hansard 1991, 200: 863, 864).
Community/Communities”) can be found in British
During the following two years, Major’s statement was
political discourse before 1991, but it was the
quoted time and again as a reference point for a positive
Conservative Prime Minister John Major who first
stance on Europe, with most commentators still giving
established is as a slogan for optimistic sounding policy-
him credit for attempting to keep Britain close to the
vision in a speech in Germany in March 1991: “Our
centre of EU policies and assuming that being close to the
government will work at the very heart of Europe with its
EU’s heart/centre was something desirable. However, his
partners in forging an integrated European community”
government’s perspective changed decisively, when in
(The Guardian, 12.03.1991).
August 1994 the governing parties in France and Germany
By announcing his government’s wish to work at the
published proposals for further EU integration, which
very heart of Europe Major intended to signal a new
envisaged a division of the Union into an “inner core” or
approach to European Community policy, which would
“circle” of member states committed to faster socio-
“improve [Britain’s] profile in Europe” following a period
economic integration on the one hand and several outer
of strained relationships during the last years of his
“circles” of less committed states, to which Britain
predecessor Margaret Thatcher’s premiership (Major
belonged (CDU/CSU Fraktion des Deutschen Bundestags
2000, 268–269). Due to the high degree of idiomaticity
1994). Major immediately rejected the proposals, which
and conventionality, his use of the phrase heart of (x) did
led the pro-EU-leaning Independent newspaper to point
not necessitate much interpretative effort on the part of the
out his dilemma of being too close to the centre of EU
media reporting on Major’s speech. 6 The phrase was
policy for his own party’s liking and not sufficiently close
quoted without much comment and the public reception of
enough in the eyes of the French and German
Major’s announcement was supportive across the political
governments and British EU-supporters:
range (The Guardian, 13.03.1991; The Times, 16.03.1991;
BBC, 18.07.1991). The liberal magazine, The Economist, He wanted Britain to be at the heart of Europe. Yet too often he
even took the policy for granted: found himself alone at the end of a limb. (The Independent,
08.09.1994)
Of course Britain should be at the heart of Europe whenever it
possibly can, for that is where the decisions that affect many British If this comment still gave Major the benefit of the doubt
interests are being taken. (The Economist, 23.11.1991) and only mildly ridiculed his stance with the pun on the
idiom “out on a limb” (Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase &
In terms of metaphorical framing, we can analyse the
Fable 1999, 864), another Independent article denounced
phrase as invoking a rather schematic, metaphorical frame
his position more sharply by reviving the heart idiom of
HEART-AS-CENTRE (of a CONTAINER), which is grounded
the slogan as a full-blooded metaphor frame and using it
in a body-based metonymy that utilises the central
for a devastating critique:
position (and to some extent, function) of an organic heart
in the human body to metonymically refer to any centre of One British metaphor, at least, has ceased to beat. John Major said
a container-like entity. A bodily-organismic frame HEART- in Bonn in March 1991, that he wanted to put Britain “where we
belong, at the very heart of Europe”. […] Neither Mr Major nor,
AS-CENTRE (of a living body) is of course also latently increasingly, others in Europe, have been speaking in quite this way
present but not especially highlighted vis-à-vis the […]. An editorial […] earlier this year suggested that if Mr Major
wanted to be at the heart of Europe, it was, presumably, as a blood
centrality aspect. This interpretation is borne out by the clot. (The Independent, 11.09.1994)
(relatively few) criticisms that Major incurred from his
parliamentary opponents in late 1991, when negotiations In this commentary, the author, A. Marshall, (re-)activated
for a new European Community Treaty (the “Maastricht the slogan’s implicit relation to the body frame through
Treaty”) led to his government’s “opt-outs” from the using further heart-related phraseology (ceased to beat,
Treaty’s provisions for a common currency and a common blood clot) to expose the discrepancy between Major’s
social charter. Opposition politicians questioned his rhetorical promise and political reality, and to attack and
enthusiasm for being close to the heart of Europe by denounce his public political “face” (Culpeper 2011, 114–
6
metaphor as used by other media or politicians. Most of these quoting uses See Roget’s International Thesaurus 1996, 143; Shorter Oxford English
express an evaluative (endorsing or critical) stance. Dictionary 2002, vol. 1, 1213; Niemeyer 2000.
117; Nodoushan 2012) as a trustworthy politician. In this The litany passes from government to government. A Britain at the
heart of Europe. […] But hold the stethoscope and listen carefully,
re-contextualisation, the HEART-AS-CENTRE frame is for the heart has some curious murmurs. [The important debates in
changed into a HEART-AS-ORGAN (of a human body) Brussels] bear no relationship to the British “debate”, hearts, livers,
gall bladders and all. (The Guardian, 01.12.1997)
frame, which makes it much more concrete by relating it
to human physiological experience and
By dismissively calling the slogan a ‘litany’ and
affective/emotional concerns, and thus also enhancing its
combining the heart (of Europe) allusion with a random
usefulness for emphatically evaluative and polemical
list of ‘lower’ organs, the commentator rubbished the
exploitation. 7 The HEART-AS-ORGAN frame also lends
slogan as a national catchphrase with little currency
itself to a more or less elaborate narrative exploitation,
outside Britain. With Labour under Blair failing to
insofar as it tells a mini-story of a (near-) death experience
connect more closely with EU policies, the slogan’s
that includes a specific biological/biographical outcome
optimistic promise lost more and more of its erstwhile
for the heart-owner. In other publications (Musolff 2006,
appeal. When in 1999 the whole EU commission under J.
2014, 2016) I have labelled this aspect scenario in the
Santer had to resign on account of nepotism allegations,
sense of a special type of frame that has more
drastic denunciations of the heart of Europe spread across
argumentative and narrative content and structure than a
all the British press media: “Report [about the scandal]
minimal schematic frame, which consists just of
strikes at heart of Europe” (The Guardian, 16.03.1999);
participants and their relations. The HEART-AS-ORGAN
“the rotten heart of Europe will never be cleaned out” (The
frame has much more potential for development into a
Sun, 17.03.1999); “changes in personnel will not be
pragmatically powerful scenario of a ‘life-and-death
enough to stop the rot at the heart of the EU” (Daily Mail,
story’ than the HEART-AS-CENTRE frame.
17.03.1999); “abruptly the heart of Europe got sick” (The
After 1994, further denunciatory uses of HEART-AS-
Economist, 18.03.1999); “a hole suddenly opened up at
ORGAN frame gained popularity, in parallel with the rise
the heart of the European Union” (The Independent,
of “Euroscepticism” among the Conservatives and media
21.03.1999); “Britain can't be at Europe's heart. It doesn't
sympathising with them (i.e. The Times, The Daily
have one” (The Sun, 06.05.1998). For a while, heart of
Telegraph and most of the tabloid newspapers). In 1995
Europe-bashing became a kind of fashion across the
the former EU official B. Connolly published a book
whole political spectrum, due to “pressures of coherence”
under the title The Rotten Heart of Europe (Connolly
(Kövecses 2009), and it remained popular throughout the
1995), which alleged widespread corruption in the EU
first decade of the new millennium (Musolff 2013, 140–
bureaucracy and became a favourite with EU-opponents.
141).
During the 1996 Conservative Party conference, the
In 2010, the incoming new Conservative-Liberal
former Tory Chancellor, N. Lamont, won standing
coalition under Prime Minster David Cameron attempted
ovations when he declared that there was “no point at
a cautious re-appropriation of the slogan from Labour, for
being at the heart of Europe if the heart is diseased” (The
instance in promises by the conservative Foreign
Guardian, 10.10.1996). By the time of the 1997 general
Secretary William Hague and the Liberal Deputy Prime
election, the Guardian found that the “’Britain at the heart
Minister Nick Clegg to “put Britain back at the heart of
of Europe’ fudge” (i.e. its rhetorical pretence of being
Europe” (The Scotsman, 01.07.2010; The Guardian,
close to that heart, whilst in fact distancing itself ever
16.12.2011). With the growing likelihood of a Brexit
more from the EU’s integration policies), had completely
referendum, however, denouncing the heart of Europe as
destroyed Major’s governmental authority (The
dead, dysfunctional or irrelevant for Britain became again
Guardian, 17.04.1997).
the dominant usage. In autumn 2014, for instance, at a
After defeating the Tories in May 1997, the incoming
time when the Brexit referendum was already being
new Labour government under Tony Blair wasted little
mooted by Cameron’s government, one Financial Times
time in reclaiming the slogan Britain at the heart of
article exposed the slogan’ demise by making it the
Europe for themselves (The Guardian, 10.06.1997). After
punchline of an invented (spoof-)dialogue between
the passing of their ‘honeymoon period’ in office,
Cameron and the incoming new President of the EU
however, they too experienced difficulties in trying to live
Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker:
up to that promise (Daddow 2013; Whitman 2016, 214–
215) and started being mocked in terms of the HEART-AS- Jean-Claude Juncker: “So just to clarify. Aside from not joining the
ORGAN frame. In December 1997, for instance, the euro, you want to limit the free movement of people, cut the power
of the European Court and the European Parliament […]”
Guardian observed:
7 In terms of appraisal theory (Martin and White 2005), the reframing of the
slogan covers two key aspects of evaluation at the same time, i.e. judgement and
affect.
David Cameron: “And since we are opting out of so much, we 3.2 Metaphors, framing and discourse history
should pay less too.”
8
Cf. e.g. Financial Times, 22.02.2016: “Britain and Europe: The UK’s four itself”; The Independent, 22.06.2016: “No wonder we’re on the brink of Brexit
tumultuous decades of membership have fueled controversy and featured huge – our politicians have never made the case for Europe”.
9
change”; 27.04.2016: “The City of London can survive and thrive after Brexit”; For an overview over conceptualizations of Europe’s collective identity see
The Daily Telegraph, 09.03.2016: “How a Brexit could save Europe from Krzyżanowski 2010.
fit the nation-focus of the traditional ONE NATION STATE – waste of the nation’s resources; at the same time, any
ONE BODY mapping and is of course wholly incompatible further ‘in-fluence’ from the EU on the UK, be it through
with mappings of Britain itself as a self-reliant nation immigration or through political control from Brussels
body/person; the latter, are, however, still highly popular seemed like risking infection from a doomed organism (to
in British public discourse including Brexit-related which one should keep “a healthy distance”, in the Daily
rhetoric, e.g. as used by the former Prime Minister Telegraph’s words, The Daily Telegraph, 14.07.2015).
Cameron (Wodak 2016). From a British-nationalistic Hence, EU-defenders’ corrections of exaggerated figures
and/or euro-sceptical viewpoint, the concept of the EU-AS of alleged British financial contributions to the EU or of
A BODY makes little sense except that of a sick or dying mass immigration from the EU into Britain made little
body, and the denunciations of that body’s heart as being impact during the 2016 Brexit campaign (Jackson et al.
sick, dying, hard, cold, rotten, missing, which we find in 2016). If the EU’s heart (and the whole EU-body) was sick
euro-sceptical discourse, fit this frame perfectly. or even dying, the question of whether the exact amount
Most (i.e. more than two thirds) of the references to the of the UK’s weekly financial support for the EU was £350
Britain at the heart of Europe slogan in the latter two million (as claimed by the pro-Brexit campaigners) or less
decades still echo explicitly or implicitly the preceding (as claimed by their opponents) was of minor importance
positive uses by Major and Blair in the ‘honeymoon – any significant amount appeared as a waste of resources.
phases’ of their terms of office. The contrasting depiction Similarly, any amount of immigration from the EU,
of Europe’s heart as physically dysfunctional serves to whether small or large, was unhealthy and increased the
criticise and ridicule those preceding users as naïve, danger of the British nation’s own state-body being
mistaken or deliberately misleading and thus undermine infected by a multinational corpse. Thus, in addition to
their status as trustworthy speakers, as in the following highlighting an emphatically negative evaluation of the
example: EU’s state of health, the HEART-AS-ORGAN frame also
undermined the counter-arguments. As the referendum
After a long period of cautious equivocation, the prime minister had,
in [Blair’s] own words, “shifted up a gear” in his ambition to lodge
result demonstrated, such factual counter-proofs appeared
Britain at its rightful place in the heart of Europe. And then, irrelevant to large sections of voters (if they were noticed
abruptly, the heart of Europe got sick. (The Economist, 18.03.1999) at all). In this sense, the story of the Britain at the heart of
Such uses served as attacks on the public “face” of the Europe slogan can serve as an exemplary warning
respective preceding speakers as a) having failed in corroborating Lakoff’s and Wehlings’s appeal to
delivering on their promise (i.e., to put Britain at the heart concentrate on intelligent and imaginative framing rather
of Europe) and/or b) still failing to acknowledge the than trying to argue solely or mainly on the basis of
changed political reality (which is assumed to correspond atomistic facts.
to the notion of a sick/dying heart). Thus, when hearing or
reading the slogan Britain at the heart of Europe during 4. Conclusion
the years leading up to Brexit, the public could expect it
to be ridiculed and negated. Since Brexit, the slogan has Political metaphors such as the heart of Europe provide
reappeared a few times but, when used affirmatively, then platforms for introducing plausible frames for assessing
only in the abstract HEART-AS-CENTRE frame. There is so and interpreting the facts that the public refers to in order
far little evidence of any enthusiastic uptake, which may to form their opinions on political issues. It is not the side
be due to its lack of any vivid scenario-structure or the with ‘the most’ or ‘best’ facts that wins but the one that
political weakness of the anti-Brexit campaign or both. which provides the most plausible, i.e. seemingly
The above-sketched discourse-history of the slogan intuitively reliable scenarios. In the case of Britain at the
Britain at the heart of Europe as a repeated frame-change heart of Europe, the slogan’s originally positive slant as
not only provides insights into its semantic and pragmatic an optimistic promise was successfully reversed by euro-
development but also concerns the role of ‘facts and sceptical campaigners who resuscitated its bodily source
figures’ in the UK-EU relationship, which were highly domain to introduce a range of illness-, death- and failure-
contested during and after the Brexit campaign. 10 In the related versions, none of which were matched by pro-EU
context of vivid metaphorical depictions of the EU’s voices. In fact, the latter produced no variation at all on
sick/dying/rotten heart and body, the continued provision the slogan, which thus remained (at best) an abstract
of financial support for the EU by the UK (in the heart-as- appeal to be close/move closer to Europe’s centre and
organ frame: of nourishment) appeared as a complete
10
Cf. e.g. The Daily Telegraph, 03.06.2016: “‘It’s Project Lies!’ Michael Gove referendum”; The Guardian, 23.05.2016: “David Cameron suggests defense
takes on the audience – and the experts”; The Guardian, 10.06.2016: “Why Vote minister is lying over Turkey joining EU”; The Daily Telegraph, 11.08.2016:
Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong;” The Independent, 27.06.2016: “Britain could be up to £70billion worse off if it leaves the Single Market after
“Brexit: Vote Leave wipes NHS £350m claim and rest of its website after EU Brexit, IFS warns”.
became a routine quotation that was available for anyone of the main master metaphor frame (NATION AS FAMILY)
to pun on. but not as a concession to the political adversary; rather as
Something similar seems to have happened to other a recognition that the public is already familiar with the
metaphor frames in British public discourse during and frame and has heard ‘one side of the story’ – to counter it,
since the Brexit campaign. For instance, Brexit was the best strategy is to engage with their expectation and
valorised not just as stopping to waste nourishment on a tell ‘the other side’, thus creating a scenario with the
dying body with a dead heart but also as the liberation power to reframe. Applied to the Brexit debate, this could
from a trap, a straitjacket or an escape from a Nazi- mean that pro-EU campaigners have to show that and how
“superstate” (Daily Express, 30.07.2016; Financial a multinational political body can function and can be of
Times, 24.06.2016; Daily Telegraph, 14.05.2016), as well benefit to all its member-nations. This is by no means an
as a divorce from a failed marriage to a partner who was easy task: the NATION-BODY/-PERSON mapping is deeply
in bad shape, tired and sterile (Daily Express, 13.11.2015; entrenched and linked to a patriotic-nationalist stance that
The Economist, 17.10.2015; Financial Times, 26.02.2016, is popular in its own right. But if reframing is to be
22.07.2016; The Guardian, 22.04.2016, 08.08.2016), or as possible at all, its proponents have to tell stories and make
a crusade and a beacon of hope (Daily Express arguments that disprove also those popular traditions. A
13.11.2015; Daily Mail 30.06.2016). Compared with this famous literary model for such a reframing is the “fable of
wealth of ‘positive’ Brexit-framing the few counter- the belly”, which dates back to ancient Aesopian
frames that did more than quote ‘facts and figures’, e.g. traditions, which were taken up by the master-story tellers
Brexit as a reckless gamble or as a journey with unknown such as Livy and Shakespeare and Marx (Patterson 1991;
outcome, were mainly warnings of an uncertain outcome Stanovsky 2009). It tells of a rebellion of the other body
rather than suggesting attractive alternative solutions. The organs against the belly’s apparent greed in taking all the
referendum outcome in favour of Brexit was, to say the food. The belly is thus framed as the culprit for the
least, not seriously put in question by them. rebellion. In several historical versions, however, this
What, then, are the chances to combat one-sided framing is countered by the belly answering its critics by
framing that leads to potentially fateful political pointing out that it not just takes but also distributes the
decisions? Complaints about “lies” or about wrong, food so that they all benefit, which is analogically applied
exaggerated or misleading representations of “facts” are, to the state and society and used to legitimise the
as we have seen, futile if they assume that the political privileges of established elites (aristocracy, monarchy,
public is chiefly interested in receiving ever more facts. etc.). Karl Marx, however, reframed the argument
Neglecting the framing power of metaphorical framing is completely as an attack against the dismemberment of
not a sign of ‘honesty’ but instead of arrogance or naivety workers’ identities in capitalist economy through hyper
about the need to convince voters through the use of specialisation (Marx 1990: 481–482). Perhaps framing
rhetorical means. Only the argumentative and entertaining theory and practice in political discourse can learn a thing
appeal of figurative framing makes political “facts" or two from him?
pragmatically meaningful so that the recipients can build
up an affective and evaluative appraisal that leads to
Bibliography
attitudinal and practical conclusions. This calls for the
innovative construction of counter-frames to ‘make sense’ Ahrens, Kathleen (2011): Examining conceptual metaphor
of reliable information. But obviously any random models through lexical frequency patterns: A case study of
launching of new metaphors or slogans is not sufficient to U.S. presidential speeches. In: Sandra Handl & Hans-Jörg
achieve a lasting reframing effect. They may well be Schmid (eds.). Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy
and conceptual blending, 167–184. Berlin: De Gruyter.
regarded as the desperate rhetorical tricks of a former
Boeynaems, Amber/Burgers, Christian/Konijn, Elly A./Steen,
political establishment that has run out of concepts and
Gerard J. (2017): The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on
arguments – a reaction that has become a stock accusation Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review In:
of “populist” parties in recent years (Oborne and Roberts Metaphor and Symbol 32 (2), 118–134.
2017; Rabin Havt et al. 2016; Wodak 2015). One of Boyd, Michael S. (2013): Reframing the American Dream.
Lakoff’s lessons for reframing is therefore to engage with Conceptual metaphor and personal pronouns in the 2008 US
the opponents’ (in his case US Conservatives’) established presidential debates. In: Piotr Cap & Urszula Okulska (eds.).
frame system (family morality) and counter it with Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, 297–319.
‘matching’ scenarios that disprove the inferences they Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (1999): Adrian Room
want to draw by offering alternative, ideally more
(ed.). London: Cassell.
plausible and appealing, narratives and outcome (in the
Brugman, Britta C/Burgers, Christian /Steen, Gerard (2017):
US case: NURTURANT FAMILY models instead of STRICT Recategorizing political frames: A systematic review of
FATHER ones). Such a move implies a partial acceptance metaphorical framing in experiments on political
communication. In: Annals of the International Kövecses, Zoltán (2009): Metaphor, Culture, and Discourse: The
Communication Association 41 (2), 181–197. Pressure of Coherence. In: Andreas Musolff & Jörg Zinken
Brugman, Britta C./Burgers, Christian (2018): Political framing (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse, 11–24. Basingstoke:
across disciplines: Evidence from 21st century experiments. Palgrave Macmillan.
In: Research & Politics 5 (2): Kövecses, Zoltán (2015): Where Metaphors Come From.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018783370. Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: University
Burgers, Christian/Konijn, Elly A.//Steen, Gerard J. (2016): Press.
Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Krzyżanowski, Michał (2010): The Discursive Construction of
Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. In: Communication Theory European Identities. A Multilevel Approach to Discourse and
26 (4), 410–430. Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt:
CDU/CSU-Fraktion des Deutschen Bundestags (1994). Lang.
Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik. Bonn: CDU. Lakoff, George (1987): Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.
Cienki, Alan (2005): Metaphor in the “Strict Father” and What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The
“Nurturant Parent” cognitive models: theoretical issues raised University of Chicago Press.
in an empirical study. In: Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2), 279– Lakoff, George (1996): Moral Politics. What Conservatives
312. Know That Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago
Cienki, Alan (2008): The Application of Conceptual Metaphor Press.
Theory to Political Discourse: Methodological questions and Lakoff, George (2004): Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your
some possible solution. In: Terrell Carver & Jernej Pikalo Values and Frame the Debate. The essential guide for
(eds.), Political Language and Metaphor. Interpreting and progressives. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.
Changing the world, 241–256. London: Routledge. Lakoff, George (2006): Thinking Points. Communicating Our
Connolly, Bernard (1995): The Rotten Heart of Europe. London: American Values and Vision. New York: Farrar, Strauss and
Faber. Giroux.
Coulson, Seana (2000): Semantic Leaps: The Role of Frame- Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (1980/2003): Metaphors we live
Shifting and Conceptual Blending in meaning Construction. by. Chicago: University Press.
Cambridge: University Press. Lakoff, George/Wehling, Elisabeth (2016): Your Brain’s
Culpeper, Jonathan (2011): Impoliteness: Using Language to Politics. How the Science of Mind Explains the Political
Cause Offence. Cambridge: University Press. Divide. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Daddow, Oliver (2013): Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and the Lehrer, Adrienne/Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.) (1992): Frames, fields
Eurosceptic Tradition in Britain. In: The British Journal of and contrasts. New essays in semantic and lexical
Politics and International Relations 15 (2), 210–227. organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Debras, Camille/l’Hôte, Emile (2015): Framing, metaphor and Major, John (2000): The Autobiography. London:
dialogue: A multimodal approach to party conference HarperCollins.
speeches. In: Metaphor and the Social World 5 (2), 177–204. Marx, Karl (1990): Capital, Volume I. Trans. Ben Fowkes.
Degani, Marta (2015): Framing the Rhetoric of a Leader. An London: Penguin.
Analysis of Obama’s Election Campaign Speeches. Martin, James R./White, Peter R. R. (2005): The Language of
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976): Frame Semantics and the Nature of Macmillan.
Language. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Science Minsky, Marvin (1974): A framework for representing
280 (1), 20–32. knowledge. Memorandum 306, AI Laboratory. Cambridge,
Fillmore, Charles J. (1985): Frames and the Semantics of MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Understanding. In: Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2), 222–253. Musolff, Andreas (2004a): Metaphor and Political Discourse.
Gallese, Vittorio/Lakoff, George (2005): The brain’s concepts: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke:
The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual Palgrave Macmillan.
knowledge. In: Cognitive Neuropsychology 22 (3), 455–479. Musolff, Andreas (2004b): The Heart of the European “Body
Goffman, Erving (1974): Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Politic”. British and German Perspectives on Europe’s
Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row. Central Organ. In: Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural
Hansard (1991): House of Commons Debate on the European Development 25 (5 & 6), 437–452.
Council in Maastricht 11 December 1991 (Hansard, vol. 200, Musolff, Andreas (2006): Metaphor Scenarios in Public
859–78). Discourse. In: Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1), 23–38.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/11/ Musolff, Andreas (2010): Metaphor, Nation and the Holocaust.
european-council-maastricht (22.01.2018). The Concept of the body politic. London: Routledge.
Hickock, Gregory (2014). The Myth of Mirror Neurons. The Musolff, Andreas (2013): The heart of Europe. Synchronic
Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition. New variation and historical trajectories of a Political Metaphor.
York: W. W. Norton & Company. In: Kjersti Fløttum (ed.), Speaking of Europe. Approaches to
Jackson, Daniel/Thorsen, Einar /Wring, Dominic (eds.) (2016): complexity in European political discourse, 135–150.
EU Referendum Analysis 2016: Media, Voters and the Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Campaign. Early reflections from leading UK academics. Musolff, Andreas (2016): Political Metaphor Analysis.
Bournemouth: Bournemouth University, Centre for the Study Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
of Journalism, Culture and Community.