The Second and Final Presidential Debate of Donald Trump and Joe Biden: A Conceptual Metaphor Analysis

Ika Nirwana
{"title":"The Second and Final Presidential Debate of Donald Trump and Joe Biden: A Conceptual Metaphor Analysis","authors":"Ika Nirwana","doi":"10.18860/lilics.v2i1.2658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study discusses the conceptual metaphor employed in the second and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The debate revolved around each candidate's arguments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their presidential candidacy. The research focuses on analyzing the meaning and various types of Conceptual Metaphors, namely Ontological Metaphor, Structural Metaphor, and Orientational Metaphor. A qualitative descriptive method was utilized to analyze the data, which was collected from the YouTube Channel featuring the debates. The researcher observed and studied the videos of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden's second and final presidential debates. The data was analyzed using Lakoff and Johnson's theory (2003). The study concludes that three types of conceptual metaphors were present in the debates. A total of 16 instances of conceptual metaphors were identified, including seven ontological metaphors, two structural metaphors, and seven orientational metaphors. While the ontological metaphor was the most prevalent, its meaning was not straightforward to interpret.","PeriodicalId":309663,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literature, Linguistics, & Cultural Studies","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literature, Linguistics, & Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18860/lilics.v2i1.2658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study discusses the conceptual metaphor employed in the second and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The debate revolved around each candidate's arguments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their presidential candidacy. The research focuses on analyzing the meaning and various types of Conceptual Metaphors, namely Ontological Metaphor, Structural Metaphor, and Orientational Metaphor. A qualitative descriptive method was utilized to analyze the data, which was collected from the YouTube Channel featuring the debates. The researcher observed and studied the videos of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden's second and final presidential debates. The data was analyzed using Lakoff and Johnson's theory (2003). The study concludes that three types of conceptual metaphors were present in the debates. A total of 16 instances of conceptual metaphors were identified, including seven ontological metaphors, two structural metaphors, and seven orientational metaphors. While the ontological metaphor was the most prevalent, its meaning was not straightforward to interpret.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的第二次也是最后一次总统辩论:一个概念隐喻分析
本研究探讨了唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登之间的第二次也是最后一次总统辩论中使用的概念隐喻。辩论围绕着每位候选人关于其总统候选人资格的利弊的论点展开。本研究着重分析了概念隐喻的意义和不同类型,即本体隐喻、结构隐喻和取向隐喻。使用定性描述方法来分析数据,这些数据是从YouTube频道收集的,其中包括辩论。研究人员观察并研究了唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的第二次也是最后一次总统辩论的视频。数据分析使用Lakoff和Johnson的理论(2003)。研究得出结论,在辩论中存在三种类型的概念隐喻。共识别出16个概念隐喻实例,其中本体隐喻7个,结构隐喻2个,取向隐喻7个。虽然本体论隐喻是最普遍的,但其含义并不容易理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Power Relations Between Maria and Male Characters Represented in Paulo Coelho’s Eleven Minutes Social Action of the Main Character in Oliver Bowden's Assassin's Creed: Renaissance Novel Oppression Towards Main Female Characters in Rao’s Girls Burn Brighter Cosmopolitanism Represented in Ocean's Eleven Movie Script Social Conflict and Social Change in Colson Whitehead’s The Nickel Boys
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1