Marrying outside the tribe: a corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse

Emilie L’Hôte

Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité

Do you know the Greek word endogamein? It means to marry within the tribe. And the word exogamein means to marry outside the tribe.

And you don’t cross those borders casually. Both sides get very angry. Brian Friel, Translations.

1. Introduction

Marrying outside the tribe is never easy, especially when it comes to linguistic theories and frameworks. But it can also be a way to provide innovative methods to answer new questions. This is one of the goals of the present study, as it proposes a corpus-based cogni t ive analys is o f pol i t i ca l discourse , in which discourse analysis is meaningfully informed by cognitive linguistics, while empirically grounded in careful corpus methods. Such a methodology highlights the need to go beyond metaphor analysis, to an analysis of the more abstract scenarios at play in the framing of political discourse. In this case, it is applied to the specific case of British political discourse.

The paper defines the proposed approach, before presenting two case studies for its application: (i) the analysis of the conceptual metaphor POLITICS IS RELIGION in British political discourse, (ii) the analysis of the Leader’s Party Conference Speeches as a relevant subgenre of political discourse in Britain.

2. What is a corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse?

One of the criticisms often made to Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA), where is seen both as an instrument of power and as an instrument involved in the social construction of reality (Fairclough 1995, Van Leeuwen 1993), is that it gives only very general guidelines for the actual conduct of analysis.

This paper proposes to provide a convincing and critical analysis of discourse while factoring activist commitments out of the equation, as they tend to weaken claims to scientific objectivity (Toolan 1997; Widdowson 1996). This means formulating research hypotheses in a way that avoids adding bias to the unavoidable subjectivity of the researcher, and bringing in more linguistic evidence allows for claims to be primarily substantiated by data, not bias.

2.1 C for Cognitive One of the central claims of Cognitive Linguistics is that linguistic structures do

not merely represent the world around us, but that they necessarily introduce a specific interpretation of it (Langacker 1987; 1991). Meaning thus depends on what particular aspect(s) of the object or the situation is “profiled”, and which aspects are backgrounded. By combining CogLing and CDA, the same issues may still be addressed, and similar mechanisms may be uncovered, but from a more ideologically neutral point of view focusing on concrete linguistic evidence. The researcher focuses on the f raming of discourse, defined by Fillmore (1982) as words and constructions that invoke a known

scenario for a situation or an event, or by Lakoff (2002, 2006) with a distinction between sur face and deep frames.

Most prominent in the combination between CDA and cognitive linguistics is Conceptual Metaphor Theory (see for instance Koller 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003; Koller and Davidson 2008; Charteris-Black 2004). A conceptual metaphor means “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff and Johnson 2003, 5). More precisely, conceptual metaphors involve unidirectional mappings from a source domain to a target domain: TARGET IS SOURCE1. Given a particular topic, it is possible to identify which metaphors are being used and how they may have (ideological) consequences for the understanding and the handling of the issue. Beyond the detailed understanding of single issues, the analysis of conceptual metaphors in political discourse has also led to the identification of wider metaphoric systems that bring insight into the understanding of the field of politics itself. These are the models underlying the domains of politics and the nation for instance, as with Lakoff’s conceptual models of politics and morality (2006; 2004; 2002). Just as other elements of cognitive linguistics have been known to yield insightful results as far as discourse analysis and CDA is concerned, such as MST, BT, or force dynamics (Hart 2010, 2014), deep frames and scenarios are here presented as taking the cognitive linguist’s toolbox beyond CMT.

2.2 C for corpus-based A strong reliance on corpus-based analyses is as central to the proposed method

as its theoretical framework. This corpus-based approach is a variation on the “methodological synergy” advocated by Baker et al. (2008). By going from extensive quantitative data and statistics to the fine-grained qualitative analysis of a sample of text and talk – for metaphor and/or gesture, it is possible to deal with those elements whose automatized quantitative analysis is as of yet highly problematic, while still picking up on larger trends. It is because this approach allows for different angles on a given dataset that the relevance of deep frames and scenarios has been identified in recent projects.

The method requires six steps, as detailed below: (i) Formulation of research hypotheses (ii) Automatised analysis of the data for the creation of exhaustive lists of

significant keywords and key concepts. This step is partly automated through the use of WMatrix (Rayson 2009), an online tool for corpus analysis and corpus comparison that produces concordance tables, frequency lists and keyness analyses. The data is tagged for Parts of Speech (PoS) using CLAWS 2 , and for semantic concepts using USAS 3 . WMatrix’s keyness analysis is a comparison between two frequency lists using log likelihood ratio as a statistical test. Each word/semantic tag/PoS tag in the primary corpus is compared to its equivalent in a secondary corpus; the software then evaluates whether the difference between the frequencies in the two corpora is statistically significant or not4 and finally reorders the word/tag list according to the statistical score obtained. WMatrix identifies both positive keywords – words that are over-represented in the primary corpus (‘+’ sign), and negative keywords – words that are under-represented in the primary corpus (‘-‘ sign).

(iii) Manual selection of significant keywords and key concepts. (iv) Concordance analysis for selected elements. Collocation analysis for high-frequency words.

1 The present work follows the convention of putting metaphor schemas in small caps. 2 Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System 3 UCREL Semantic Analysis System 4 In the following tables, significant LL scores are presented in boldface type.

(v) Detailing of initial research questions and hypotheses. (vi) Additional steps (qualitative focus): - Manual annotation of concordance lines with additional statistical testing. - Inclusion of gesture in the analysis, on a smaller sample of the data. In the

second case study presented here, the video of Blair’s 2006 party conference speech was annotated in ELAN for the multiple non-verbal dimensions of the speaker’s performance. A specific template was designed by Camille Debras for the annotation of a speech performed in the presence of an audience, with tiers for head movements, facial expressions, hand gesture forms, hand gesture functions, and audience reactions.

3. Case studies 3.1 POLITICS IS RELIGION

3.1.1 Project description

The corpus data used in this study is detailed in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Corpus data for Case study 1

Corpus name Content Words Dates NL New Labour texts

3 manifestos, 56 speeches and articles

278,586 1994-2007

LP “Old” Labour texts, 14 manifestos, 41 speeches

342,790 1945-1993

CP Conservative texts 3 manifestos, 31 speeches

160,328 1994-2007

BNCw Written sampler 1,000,000 1980s-1993

Three main categories of political metaphors are identified in the data: POLITICS is understood in terms of ENTITIES, SPACE, and HUMAN ACTIVITIES. This is done by coding all occurrences of the restricted target domain of POLITICS (cf. Stefanowitsch (2006, 102) on the relevance of this method – I’ll be happy to answer questions about this part of the process after this presentation). POLITICS IS RELIGION is one of the central metaphors in the HUMAN ACTIVITIES domain. The semi-automatized analysis of occurrences of the metaphor in my data not only highlights discursive strategies of self-representation, but also points to the necessity for the adoption of a wider, more abstract type of frame to account for all the relevant religious references in the data.

3.1.2 Quantitative analysis The analysis of POLITICS IS RELIGION in our data is based primarily on concordances lines for the USAS semantic concept “Religion and the supernatural (S9)”, which provides an accurate overview of the domain of religion, with the addition of the lemma faith.

Table 2: Keyness analysis for S9+faith

Concept NL (n)

LP (%)

+/- LL NL-LP CP +/- LL NL-CP

S9 + faith 511/0.18 671/0.2 - 1.23 153/0.10 + 55.91

As shown in Table 2, while the reliance of S9 in LP and NL remains relatively stable, it occurs significantly more often in NL than in CP, thereby suggesting that Labour discourse in general is more concerned with religion than Conservative discourse. All concordance lines for S9 were then coded for metaphorical use in connexion with the domain of politics. Results are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3: Keyness analysis for POLITICS IS RELIGION

Metaphor NL (n)

LP (%)

+/- LL NL-LP

CP +/- LL NL-CP

POLITICS IS RELIGION

90/0.03 196/0.06 - 21.33 29/0.02 + 8.07

POLITICS IS RELIGION occurs significantly more often in LP than in NL, with a larger variety of metaphorical realisations, but no significant difference is identified between the two modern-day corpora. Obviously, results cannot be put down to initial frequency differences of the semantic domain as a whole. One possible explanation for these figures is that post-war Britain was more strongly Christian and less religiously diverse than present-day Britain. This means that a metaphorical reliance on the domain of (Christian) religion was more likely to strike an ethical note in the majority of the population before the 1990s, and was therefore more efficient in the building of national unity. As we’ll see in a little while, these figures also signal a paradigm shi f t in the conceptualisation of politics in British political discourse, along the lines of Koller’s analysis (2009).

3.1.3 Qualitative analysis A detailed analysis of concordance lines for S9 + Faith allows for the identification of two subgroups of metaphors: (i) DESIRABLE POLITICS IS BIBLICAL RELIGION (ii) UNDESIRABLE POLITICS IS NON-CHRISTIAN/ORGANIZED RELIGION (ie religion as an

institution, as opposed to a set of beliefs). Both are used to negotiate the political legitimacy and representation of the speaker and their opponents in discourse. The following paragraphs give the detail of subcase (i), as it is most relevant to the methodological claims made in this paper. In occurrences of (i) DESIRABLE POLITICS IS BIBLICAL RELIGION, the gravity associated with Christianity in Western societies emphasizes the relevance and the value of political arguments and policy choices. This is established through a series of mappings and entailments. Some of them are standard in metaphor analysis, such as: Poli t i ca l convic t ion is re l ig ious fai th . This legitimates an absence of rationality in the determination of political adhesion and political choices:

(1) We bring to foreign affairs, as to other spheres, the touchstone of our Socialist faith. We are seeking to promote world peace by collective security. For many years we have been faithful to that doctrine when others fell away (LP).

In NL and CP, mapping occurs between political adhesion of the general public and religious faith: This suggests a shift in the conceptualization of politics, from adhesion to principles to quest for public approval and consensus.

(2) I want to renew our country’s faith in the ability of its government and politics to deliver this new Britain (NL).

Some mappings, however, require a reliance on wider scenarios – a strict reliance on Pragglejaz’s MIP would have missed them in the data. These were still coded as instances of POLITICS IS RELIGION when they were found in the concordance lines from S9. In some cases, it is the reference to a schematic scenario that allows for the identification of a given mapping, rather than the identification of a single word used metaphorically, as in:

(3) He [...] breathed hope into a politics grown weary and cynical. What he was seen as representing, even after death, was in a sense the crowning achievement of his life [...] we celebrate a pride reborn [...] Ensuring the Party in which he believed and to which he gave his life becomes the next Labour government of Britain (NL).

Here, John Smith’s life is framed as the life of Jesus. He brings about the rebirth of politics, gives his life for the party, and even survives his own death: A trustworthy l eader is a bibl i ca l de i ty . In other cases, it is the reliance on the text of the Bible that hints at these large scenarios5.

(4) In the words of the Old Testament, which is common to both traditions in Northern Ireland, there is a time to love and a time to hate, a time of war and a time of peace (CP).

In this example, the word testament is not metaphorical per se, but use of Bible quote6 presents political reconciliation in Northern Ireland as biblical reconciliation. Original quotes tend to be transformed in the data:

(5) What the people give, the people can take away (NL).

A quote from the Book of Job adapted to political realities in 1997. While biblical humility is induced by the Lord, political humility is forced by the will of the people so that in new Labour discourse, the people are God . The form of new Labour’s adaptation is closer to the inaccurate but widely quoted “What the Lord giveth, he taketh away” vs. “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away” (Job 1:21). This suggests that the popularity of the line and its strategic value was deemed more relevant than its biblical accuracy. Transformation of the quote may also be used as part of a negative strategy, as in the mapping unethical pol i t i c s i s a disregard for the Scr iptures :

(6) I stand for a Britain that supports as first class citizens not just some children and some families but supports all children and all families. We all remember that

5 All relevant passages were checked against King James’ Bible on

http://www.biblegateway.com/ 6 “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: [...] A

time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace”, Ecclesiastes 3:8.

biblical saying: suffer the little children to come unto me. No Bible I have ever read says: bring just some of the children (NL) 7.

This biblical quote is distorted in order to legitimize new Labour’s social policy and defuse potential criticism on the part of their opponents using reductio ad absurdum. Just as it does not make sense for Jesus to reserve his love for a specific group of children in the Bible, leaving children behind in British society is politically unethical. This example highlights the symbolic value of these biblical quotes: the speaker also uses them to confirm that he is a regular reader of the scriptures, as the main implication of No Bible I have ever read is indeed: “I have read various versions of the Bible”. This qualitative analysis highlights the relevance of an analysis that goes beyond the level of the word, ie the inclusion in a metaphor identification procedure of larger symbolic scenarios – in our case, in connexion with biblical stories and quotes. The quantitative side of the data actually points in a similar direction. The frequency of POLITICS IS RELIGION – as well as the variety of its realisations – is shown to have decreased overtime (this claim is in the process of being checked against figures from a pre-94 Conservative corpus). If this shift is confirmed, it can be connected with a more general move away from antagonizing metaphors towards consensual metaphors in British political discourse identified in this project. The category of ENTITIES, which presents politics as natural, and allows for relative vagueness in the assignation of responsibility, remains rather stable throughout the data. HUMAN ACTIVITY metaphors, which create clear-cut distinctions and express strong political allegiances, become less prominent in recent data. On the other hand, there is an increased importance of SPACE and MOVEMENT, which allow for an emphasis on action and a constant redefinition of politics as an object of discourse. Thus the evolution identified in our data is coherent with a British political landscape in which oppositions have become less clear-cut, and in which politics is understood in increasingly vague and non-threatening terms. These results suggest that Shore’s concept of foundational schemas (1996) is the most relevant tool to make sense of the evolution, and requires – once again – to move beyond the word-level in the analysis of metaphor in discourse: “[a] foundational schema is a high-level model of great generality and abstractness. Generally, foundational schemas are not dedicated to a single domain of social life but organize and underlie a large number of specific cultural models whose forms are roughly analogous to one another” (Shore 1996, 117).

3.2 Party Conference Speeches 3.2.1 Project description

The second case study here is an ongoing research project (L’Hôte & Debras, in

review), in which Camille Debras and I propose to consider the Party Conference Speech (henceforth PCS) as a paradigmatic example of effective political speech, so as to identify and analyse the elements that make for the successful reception of a political speech, and determine the ways in which the leader brings about consensus and generates applause (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986). The corpus data used for this project is detailed in Table 4 below.

7 “But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little

children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God”, Mark 10:14.

Table 4: PCS corpus data

Corpus name Content Words Dates LPCS Labour leader’s PCS

(n=20) 119,805 1994-2013

LnPCS Labour leader’s other speeches (n=46)

144,786 1994-2013

TPCS Conservative leader’s PCS (n=20)

107,245 1994-2013

TnPCS Labour leader’s other speeches (n=28)

85,791 1994-2013

PCS All PCS (n=40)

227,052 1994-2013

nPCS All other speeches (n=74)

230,581 1994-2013

We start with a quantitative overview of Party Conference Speeches analysed as

written corpora, before zooming in on Tony Blair’s 2006 Party Conference Speech, so as to identify what non-verbal strategies come into play in the discursive construction of the leader’s individual and the party’s collective identities.

3.2.2 Quantitative analysis

In the quantitative part of our study, we identified three key dimensions of PCS through which the speaker builds a strong and direct connexion with his various audiences (at the conference, on TV, online). (i) To win them over, the speaker emphasizes the interpersonal dimension of his address by framing it as an intimate relation even with a distant, indirect audience (TV, Internet). (ii) He favours affect and values over political reasoning, by presenting political stakes in a non-technical way. (iii) He brings consensual elements to the fore to seal the party’s collective identity. Point (iii) is particularly useful in highlighting the relevance of deep frames such as Lakoff’s conceptual models of politics, and large schemas such as new Labour’s narrative of change and progress (L’Hôte 2014).

The speeches focus on elements of the party’s identity about which everyone agrees or on which the speaker wants everyone to agree, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: The party’s collective identity – keyword list n°1

The keywords listed in the latter point to key elements in each of the parties’ identities, which are in significant overuse in PCS compared to nPCS. Some words are

Word PCS (n)

PCS (%)

nPCS (n)

nPCS (%)

+/- LL PCS-nPCS

generation 150 0.07 61 0.03 + 40.13 tough 140 0.06 56 0.02 + 38.5 family 206 0.09 109 0.05 + 31.88 love 64 0.03 16 0.01 + 31.58 common_sense 65 0.03 18 0.01 + 28.99 choice 174 0.08 91 0.04 + 27.73 journey 36 0.02 7 0 + 21.85 wrong 156 0.07 94 0.04 + 16.51

specific to a given speech in the data, and thus represent a specific moment in the lives of the parties, such as the noun generation, which points to Ed Milliband’s new rallying call of Labour’s “new generation” in his 2010 and 2011 PCS. Similarly, the noun phrase common_sense appears mainly in David Cameron’s 2010 PCS, in which he defines the Conservatives’ “Common Sense Revolution”, as illustrated in example (7):

(7) Only by trusting the instincts and the individuals and the institutions and the independence of the people of this country can we hope to seize the opportunity that this Government is so tragically squandering. That’s why we’re going to lead a Common Sense Revolution. That’s why we’re going to govern for the hard-working, hard pressed, decent law abiding people of this country and bring an end to the rule of the small out-of-touch new Labour clique that thinks it is so much better than the rest of us (TPCS).

It is meant to present the Conservatives as closer to the population and oppose them to a new Labour clique supposedly disconnected from the needs of the people. This is part of a general strategy to create a more compassionate branding for the Party (Bale, 2010). It can also be taken as a reference to Margaret Thatcher’s Speech at the 1980 Party Conference, in which she hopes for “a winter of common sense” – the Conservative alternative to the 1978-9 “winter of discontent”.

Other words in Table 5 above are more evenly distributed in the data, reflecting more stable elements in the framing of the parties’ identities. The prominence of the noun choice is far from surprising: the prototypical concept of choice plays an essential role in Conservative philosophy, and has been taken over and transformed into what L’Hôte (2010) has termed “no-alternative choice” in new Labour discourse. The noun journey is part of the party’s narrative of change and modernisation, which played a major role in the discourse of the party from Blair’s start as leader in 1994 to the 2010 elections (see L’Hôte & Lemmens (2009) and L’Hôte (2014) for more detail on the issue). Words like tough, love, family and wrong point to Labour’s partial adoption of the deep frames associated with a Strict-Father model of politics (Lakoff 2002). As discussed in L’Hôte (2014), this complex deep frame pervades the entire discourse of the party, in order to defuse Labour’s soft stereotype in the minds of the public.

Once again, deep frames such as these contribute to the selection of many surface frames – metaphorical or not – in discourse and gesture, but they may not always be identified by a precise series of source-to-target mappings expressed in the text. Cienki’s (2005) empirical testing of Lakoff’s theoretical models suggests that reasoning in terms of conceptual models may occur more “through non-metaphorical language than through verbal metaphoric expressions” (p. 304). He remarks that some of the metaphors identified by Lakoff in connection with the Strict-Father and the Nurturant-Parent models may be expressed more frequently in the gestures of speakers than in their discourse. We elaborate on this idea in the qualitative focus on Blair’s 2006 PCS, which was his last as leader of the party.

3.2.3 Multimodal analysis

The most salient features of Blair’s 2006 PCS correspond to three deep frames that are specific to contemporary Labour discourse. (i) Blair’s “tough” rhetoric is typical of Labour’s shift towards the Strict Father model under his leadership. (ii) The idea of forward movement and its connected metaphors are anchored in Labour’s consensual narrative of progress and change. (iii) The assertion of the party’s collective identity as the people’s party is highlighted by a multimodal discourse of inclusion. Our multimodal analysis shows that these deep frames and schemas can be expressed in the verbal

content and the gestures simultaneously, or in only one of these two modalities at a given time. For instance, when Blair’s words do not refer to the Strict Father model, this deep frame can still be expressed in the speaker’s gestures, thereby strengthening the consistency of the discourse. This paper will present the detailed analysis of (i), aka Blair’s – and new Labour’s – tough rhetoric.

As shown in Table 5 above, the word tough is significantly more frequent in PCS, which points to a recent shift in new Labour discourse. In accordance with Cienki’s analysis (2005), we identify textual entailments of the model, as in (8):

(8) I always said the Home Office was the toughest job in government. It hasn't got easier. We should get a few facts straight. Crime has fallen not risen. We are the only government since the war to do it (Blair 2006).

The image of “toughness” is applied both to the politics of crime and to the policies implemented to fight it. The occurrence of straight in the second part of the quote is coherent with the Strict Father frame, as it points to one of its constitutive metaphors as identified by Lakoff (2002) and confirmed by Cienki (2005): BEING MORAL IS BEING UPRIGHT.

Blair’s and Labour’s “tough” rhetoric is also constructed through a consistent use of multimodal resources, sometimes independently from the text of the speech. We argue that Blair’s positioning (Harré & Langenhove, 1999) as a strict father is visually enhanced by the recurrent use of the index pointed upwards. Throughout the speech, this gesture is performed in various forms, as illustrated in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Blair's tough gestures

This gesture form is combined with a large variety of verbal content, and is always synchronized with prosodic stress, as in examples (9) to (13).

(9) We have (…) not enough women MPs, but twice what there were (Blair 2006). 8

(10) Manchester (…), a city that shows what a confident, open, and proud people with a great Labour council can do (Blair 2006).

(11) Last year China and India produced more graduates… graduates than all of Europe put together (Blair 2006).

(12) David Cameron’s Tories? My advice: get after them (Blair 2006).

(13) And I say to business: you have a responsibility to train your workforce (Blair 2006).

8 In this section’s examples, boldface type is used to highlight prosodic stresses.

As a gesture form, the basic motivation of the upward-pointing index is deictic9. And yet, in none of the afore-mentioned examples does Blair point at any object (concrete or abstract) or space located above himself, as evidenced by the type of verbal content this gesture combines with (twice, with, graduates, my advice, I say). Instead, this gesture form is used as part of multimodal prosody (Bolinger, 1983; Ferré, 2012): the speaker synchronizes beat movements of the hand (McNeill, 2005) with vocal prosodic stresses to highlight – without actually pointing at – the importance of a specific element in the discourse and to bring it to the audience’s attention. Thus in examples (9) to (13) as in the rest of the speech, the upward-pointing index takes on a pragmatic function (Streeck, 1994; 2009) rather than a referential one. It can be interpreted as the source domain for a metaphor, which can be formalized as X IS BEING UPRIGHT. Because gestures are schematic and underdetermined by nature (Lapaire, 2011), and because the meaning of a pragmatic gesture cannot be derived from the accompanying verbal content, the target domain of this metaphor cannot be identified with absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the upward-pointing index is also culturally conventionalized as an emblem (Ekman & Friesen, 1969), when it is used to scold or threaten children. Therefore, we can hypothesize that the target domain in question is MORALITY, and that the metaphor expressed in these cases is likely to be BEING MORAL IS BEING UPRIGHT. According to this analysis, the upward-pointing index is a visual entailment of the Strict Father model, and Blair’s recurrent use of this gesture contributes to positioning himself as the authoritative source of the party’s values. This casts a new light on examples (12) and (13), in which Blair gives marching orders, either to his supporters (get after them) or to a potentially dissenting entity (train your workforce).

4. Conclusion

The present study has proposed a corpus-based cogni t ive analys is o f pol i t i ca l discourse , and, through the presentation of two case studied based on British political corpora, it has highlighted the need to focus on empirical evidence while also looking beyond metaphor analysis, to an analysis of the more abstract scenarios at play in the framing of political discourse. This methodology for the analysis of political discourse emphasizes the importance to combine quantitative and qualitative outlooks for a holistic view of the data. As it uncovers a need to look at abstract scenarios such as Lakoff’s deep frames and Shore’s foundational schemas, this study also points to a stronger need for the analysis of political representations at various levels, from the politician’s standpoint to the media’s, to the public.

9 See Kita (2008) for a detailed discussion of the rich variety of meanings of pointing

gestures.

References Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press. Discourse & Society, 19(3): 273–306. Bale, T. (2010). The Conservative Party: from Thatcher to Cameron. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bolinger, D. (1983). Intonation and Gesture. American Speech, 58(2), 156–174. Cienki, A. (2005). Metaphor in the ‘Strict Father’ and ‘Nurturant Parent’ Cognitive Models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279–312. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. (1969). The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49–98. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London; New York: Longman. Ferré, G. (2012). Functions of Three Open-Palm Hand Gestures. Multimodal Communication, 1(1), 5–20. Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Pub. Co. Harré, R. & Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action, Oxford: Blackwell. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ———. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 110–157. Kita, S. (2008). Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. Mahwah & London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Koller, V. (2003). “Metaphor clusters in business media discourse: A social cognition approach.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna. ———. (2004). Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: a clinical cognitive study. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. (2005). “Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199-224. ———. (2009). Missions and Empires: Religious and Political Metaphors in Corporate Discourse. In Metaphor and discourse, ed. Andreas Musolff and Jörg Zinken, 116-134. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macillan. Koller, V., & P. Davidson. (2008). “Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: a cross-genre study of British policy-making.” Discourse & Society 19 (3): 307-331. L’Hôte, E. (2014). Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse (1994-2007). London: Palgrave Macmillan. L’Hôte, E. (2010). New Labour and Globalization: Globalist Discourse with a Twist? Discourse & Society, 21(4), 355–376. L’Hôte, E. & Lemmens, M. (2009). Reframing Treason: Metaphors of Change and Progress in New Labour Discourse. CogniTextes, 3, http://cognitextes.revues.org/248.

L’Hôte, E. & C. Debras (In review). Framing, metaphor and dialogue – a multimodal approach to Party Conference Speeches, in Metaphor and the Social World. Lakoff, George. (2006). Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ———. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub. ———. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ——— (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lapaire J.-R. (2011). Grammar, gesture and cognition: Insights from multimodal utterances and applications for gesture analysis. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія філологічна, 52: 87–107. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. Rayson, P. (2003). Matrix: A Statistical Method and Software Tool for Linguistic Analysis through Corpus Comparison.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster. Rayson, P. (2008). From Key Words to Key Semantic Domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–49. Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: a corpus-based approach. In Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, ed. A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries, 63-105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Streeck, J. (1994). 'Speech-handling': The metaphorical representation of speech in gestures. A cross-cultural study. Austin (Texas): Unpublished manuscript. Toolan, M. (1997). “What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it?” Language and Literature 6 (2): 83. Van Leeuwen, Theo. (1993). “Genre and Field in Critical Discourse Analysis: A Synopsis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 193 -223. Widdowson, Henry. (1996). “Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and interpretation: conjectures and refutations.” Language and Literature 5 (1): 57-69.